PDA

View Full Version : [5e] - Monk Class



Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 05:05 PM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vf3AQusmHDxlaWYTIo3AFgW0Ob9egxpsrXbqhLp-r1Q/edit#

Reposted because server lag corrupted my first thread.

Using a Google Doc to host the content; much easier for me to update and link to.

Constructive criticism is welcome.

Tanuki Tales
2012-09-01, 05:20 PM
Erm...isn't the posting of this against some Non-Disclosure stuff? :smallconfused:

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 05:27 PM
Erm...isn't the posting of this against some Non-Disclosure stuff? :smallconfused:

No; it's complete homebrew.

Tanuki Tales
2012-09-01, 05:31 PM
No; it's complete homebrew.

But doesn't it rely on the knowing and understanding of a rule set that is barred from discussion at this time?

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 05:41 PM
I don't think generalities this vague about the ruleset are covered under the NDAs; nothing about them is specifically explained or defined. All of the detail is concerned purely with the class. I'd posted this content to the public DnD Next forums of the WotC site first, and the moderators have not found the content, or its publication objectionable.

Tanuki Tales
2012-09-01, 05:45 PM
I don't think generalities this vague about the ruleset are covered under the NDAs; nothing about them is specifically explained or defined. All of the detail is concerned purely with the class. I'd posted this content to the public DnD Next forums of the WotC site first, and the moderators have not found the content, or its publication objectionable.

Alrighty then; I hope you find the feedback you're seeking then. :smallsmile:

I'd give my opinion, but I can barely make heads or tails of your 'brew without being one of those playtester folks. :smallbiggrin:

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 05:47 PM
Alrighty then; I hope you find the feedback you're seeking then. :smallsmile:

I'd give my opinion, but I can barely make heads or tails of your 'brew without being one of those playtester folks. :smallbiggrin:

Lol; probably why the mods are fine with it.

AgentPaper
2012-09-01, 06:25 PM
Why do all of the class features disappear if less than half of your class levels are monk? I can understand not wanting to give away too many goodies for a 1-level dip, but I think you went a bit overboard.

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 06:46 PM
Why do all of the class features disappear if less than half of your class levels are monk? I can understand not wanting to give away too many goodies for a 1-level dip, but I think you went a bit overboard.

I'm going to be frank. I hate cherry picking dippers, whether it's 1 level or 5.

I consider myself an optimizer, but I couldn't stand those hypertwinked builds in 3.5 comprised of 4+ classes, the vast majority of which had less than 6 levels invested in any one of them. I have an admitted reflexive hatred of such builds; these are things that make even me wince at their nigh unjustifiable cheddar. My opinion is, arbitrary as it may be, that you should have an even level or majority investment in a class if you're going to reap its greatest benefits. I might remove the majority level prohibition for some features, but the most powerful ones will retain it.

If WotC adopts the design and decides to remove those limits, so be it.

Dublock
2012-09-01, 06:48 PM
Why do all of the class features disappear if less than half of your class levels are monk? I can understand not wanting to give away too many goodies for a 1-level dip, but I think you went a bit overboard.

Not to mention someone over in the main 5E discussion said the multi-classing is going to be different then 3.5, and that might include the level 1 dip so that the developers can put a lot of the cool stuff in level 1.

To be honest I would just assume no multi-classing until we know.

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 06:49 PM
I honestly haven't heard that much about how multiclassing is going to work in 5e, but I threw those limiters up, just in case.

AgentPaper
2012-09-01, 07:14 PM
I'm going to be frank. I hate cherry picking dippers, whether it's 1 level or 5.

I consider myself an optimizer, but I couldn't stand those hypertwinked builds in 3.5 comprised of 4+ classes, the vast majority of which had less than 6 levels invested in any one of them. I have an admitted reflexive hatred of such builds; these are things that make even me wince at their nigh unjustifiable cheddar. My opinion is, arbitrary as it may be, that you should have an even level or majority investment in a class if you're going to reap its greatest benefits. I might remove the majority level prohibition for some features, but the most powerful ones will retain it.

If WotC adopts the design and decides to remove those limits, so be it.

If you want to make it so players can only take one, maybe two classes, then you should just say that outright, instead of saying, "Yeah sure, multiclass away. Oh, except you won't get...this class feature, or this one...or or that one...oh you got a new level? Well at level 2 monks get this...except you don't because you're a dirty little multiclasser with 3 fighter levels, now aren't you?"

If you really want to keep abilities from going to people who multi-class heavily, then all you need to do is put all the good stuff you want only pure monks to get at level 10+.

Anyways, we have no idea how multiclassing is going to work yet, so for now you're probably better off just designing the class assuming it will be taken from 1 to 20, and then once the multiclassing rules are out, you can change things as needed to fit that.

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 07:37 PM
If you want to make it so players can only take one, maybe two classes, then you should just say that outright, instead of saying, "Yeah sure, multiclass away. Oh, except you won't get...this class feature, or this one...or or that one...oh you got a new level? Well at level 2 monks get this...except you don't because you're a dirty little multiclasser with 3 fighter levels, now aren't you?"

If you really want to keep abilities from going to people who multi-class heavily, then all you need to do is put all the good stuff you want only pure monks to get at level 10+.

Anyways, we have no idea how multiclassing is going to work yet, so for now you're probably better off just designing the class assuming it will be taken from 1 to 20, and then once the multiclassing rules are out, you can change things as needed to fit that.

The problem is I can't give full power fundamental class features at early levels (like Flurry of Blows, and Ki Strike) if I constrain everything to higher ones. Besides, class level restrictions on features are hardly flirting with complexity in either objective or relative terms.

Also, I don't mind multiclass investment or characters by themselves. Multiclassing only annoys me when a character is obviously a huge composite of exploitative dips.

Lastly, again, in the hopeful event that WotC does adopt the class design in whole or part, I want my intentions to be very plain and explicit ASAP. I wouldn't like to see the class taken up, then, post multiclass rules, watch as its features are published without class level restrictions because I didn't make them apparent beforehand; it's probably harder to revert or change something existent and established than to prevent it from happening in the first place. Ounce of prevention, etc...

AgentPaper
2012-09-01, 09:46 PM
Again, if you want to disallow heavy multiclassing, then just instate a houserule that says nobody can take more than 2-3 classes. That's all the prevention you need.

Anyways, onto reviewing the actual class:

Monk Techniques. Why aren't these Ki powers? Having another set of abilities that fill a very similar role to Ki seems like it would just dilute the class. It'd be better to have one set of powers that is very strong and robust.

As for the Ki powers themselves, they're a bit funnily worded. Why are all of them triggered abilities, rather than actions that you can take? This seems to go against the 5e principle of "your turn, do your action, now you're done", which is one of the most widely liked aspects of the system, from what I can tell.

There is also the issue that every one of the Ki power is a utility ability. It's good to have utility Ki powers, but if the class has no way of dealing damage aside from making a basic attack every round, then it's going to get boring pretty quick. It threatens to fall into the same problems that the 3.5 monk had, where it has a million ways to defend itself, but no real way to go on the offensive.

I'd also suggest making Flurry of Blows into a Ki ability, that simply allows you to attack twice for 1 Ki. This would be an ability that all monks get at 1st level. This would help allow the monk to go on the offensive if he needs to, and you don't have to worry about modifying your attack bonus all the time.

Surrealistik
2012-09-01, 10:33 PM
Again, if you want to disallow heavy multiclassing, then just instate a houserule that says nobody can take more than 2-3 classes. That's all the prevention you need.

I prefer a more hardline solution. You do not. We will not agree.


Monk Techniques. Why aren't these Ki powers? Having another set of abilities that fill a very similar role to Ki seems like it would just dilute the class. It'd be better to have one set of powers that is very strong and robust.


Because they're not supernaturally enhanced. Ki powers feature truly extraordinary feats, mostly ones that supplement the Monk's power.

Techniques are more mundane specialized combat maneuvers that can be utilized at-will and require no especial investment or power to realize.


As for the Ki powers themselves, they're a bit funnily worded. Why are all of them triggered abilities, rather than actions that you can take? This seems to go against the 5e principle of "your turn, do your action, now you're done", which is one of the most widely liked aspects of the system, from what I can tell.

I've never known that to be a core 5e principle, or one that's widely liked. There are quite a few reaction based skills and abilities in even the playtest, and I expect there will be more. That said, most of the triggers featured typically only factor in on your turn, when you perform an attack or movement.


There is also the issue that every one of the Ki power is a utility ability. It's good to have utility Ki powers, but if the class has no way of dealing damage aside from making a basic attack every round, then it's going to get boring pretty quick. It threatens to fall into the same problems that the 3.5 monk had, where it has a million ways to defend itself, but no real way to go on the offensive.

Ki Blast is a pure offensive power, and an alternate form of damage dealing. Blurred Fist is more of an offensive power than a utility one. I wouldn't quite consider stuff like the enhancing Fist Ki Disciplines to be utility powers either (they're more attack supplements), unless by utility you broadly mean stuff that doesn't directly harm or hinder on its own merits.

As for alternate methods of damage dealing, while the Monk is primarily basic attack based, he has Flurry of Blows, Maneuvers and Ki Disciplines to change up and vary his offensive roster by mutating those attacks into different things.


I'd also suggest making Flurry of Blows into a Ki ability, that simply allows you to attack twice for 1 Ki. This would be an ability that all monks get at 1st level. This would help allow the monk to go on the offensive if he needs to, and you don't have to worry about modifying your attack bonus all the time.

I'm not sure if I like it, given that FoB is the Monk's signature attack; it's what puts his damage output and prowess on par with the at-will capabilities of the Fighter and Warlock, and makes his offense unique (besides all of the mutations he can apply to his attacks). More accurate single attacks retain their niche when you invest significant Ki in one via the empowering 'Fist' Ki Disciplines.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 12:12 AM
I prefer a more hardline solution. You do not. We will not agree.

Ok, that's fine. Still, I think your approach could use a bit of work. Let's say you're a level 10 fighter, who has just adventured his way into the Far East, or Near South, or wherever monks are in this setting. Anyways, he sees a monk doing his thing, and is so impressed that he decides to begin training in this new and foreign style. The next time he levels up, he takes a level of monk...and gets +1d8 HP, and no other bonuses from leveling. He figures, ok, I have to spend some time, really make this an investment. He levels up two more times, gets nothing.

Not until he reaches level 20, with 10 levels of monk to equal his 10 levels of fighter, does he get any class abilities. Now, suddenly, for no apparent reason, he's a master monk when seconds before he wasn't even able to so much as flurry of blows.

Even worse, let's say all of the classes used this system. Now, the only way to multiclass in any sort of viable form is to take exactly two classes, and level up one and then the other until you're level 10 in both. Oh, and every other level, you lose half of your class features until you level again and can balance out the numbers.

All of this would certainly be improved if only a few of the powers were limited in this way, but the issue isn't actually resolved. It's a clunky, frustrating mechanic that will annoy your players to no end.

"No more than 2 classes" is a hardline solution. I don't disagree that a hardline solution is good, but it should be a hardline solution that is up-front about what it's meant to do, and does so in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary frustration.


Because they're not supernaturally enhanced. Ki powers feature truly extraordinary feats, mostly ones that supplement the Monk's power.

Techniques are more mundane specialized combat maneuvers that can be utilized at-will and require no especial investment or power to realize.

Fair enough, though Ki blurs the line between natural and supernatural.


I've never known that to be a core 5e principle, or one that's widely liked. There are quite a few reaction based skills and abilities in even the playtest, and I expect there will be more. That said, most of the triggers featured typically only factor in on your turn, when you perform an attack or movement.

It was part of the PAX podcast. It's why there aren't Standard Actions, Minor Actions, Move Actions, and so on.

The main issue I have with them being reactions is that it exponentially increases the possible actions that a monk player can take each turn. For example, let's say you're a level 5 monk, and you chose Stunning Fist, Swift Reaction, Prescient Dodge, and Burst of Speed. You also have Counterstrike and Swift Disarm.

You're confronted by 3 orcs in front of you, and a goblin wizard about 60 feet away. You have 4 Ki points to spend this encounter. What do you do? You could:

1) Burst of Speed over to the wizard, hoping the orcs miss their opportunity attacks (they do have disadvantage, though), then flurry of blows the Wizard, leaving Prescient Dodge up to avoid any nasty spell he might cast at you next turn.

2) Flurry of Blows two of the orcs, using Stunning Fist and Swift Disarm to take them out of the fight for a good while.

3) Use a dodge action, then when the orcs go to attack you, use Prescient Dodge to make at least two of them miss, and use Swift Reaction twice so you can counterstrike all three.

4) Flurry of Blows on one of the orcs, hopefully killing it, then Burst of Speed over to the wizard so you can keep him from casting any spells using Swift Reaction if need be.

5) Flurry of Blows one of the orcs, hopefully killing it, then prepare to use Swift Reaction, Prescient Dodge, Counterstrike, and Swift Disarm to disarm the other two as they go to attack you, so you can burst of Speed over to the wizard next turn and deal with it mono-a-mono.

and so on...

I'm not saying options are bad, and certainly the monk should have a good amount of options available to them, but the sheer number of options you get at level 20, with 11 Ki abilities, 10 techniques, and 10 or so Ki points every encounter, is frankly getting a bit absurd. Maybe you want there to be that many options, but I just wanted to warn you that at least for me, this would turn me off from the class more than anything else. I'd much rather have a smaller number of options and abilities, and then instead make each of those options/abilities more powerful to compensate, so it felt like my decisions made more of an impact.


Ki Blast is a pure offensive power, and an alternate form of damage dealing. Blurred Fist is more of an offensive power than a utility one. I wouldn't quite consider stuff like the enhancing Fist Ki Disciplines to be utility powers either (they're more attack supplements), unless by utility you broadly mean stuff that doesn't directly harm or hinder on its own merits.

As for alternate methods of damage dealing, while the Monk is primarily basic attack based, he has Flurry of Blows, Maneuvers and Ki Disciplines to change up and vary his offensive roster by mutating those attacks into different things.

I did miss Ki Blast, and Blurred Fist does also fall into the "offensive" category. Still, I think at the very least you could put a bit more damage into the utility abilities.


I'm not sure if I like it, given that FoB is the Monk's signature attack; it's what puts his damage output and prowess on par with the at-will capabilities of the Fighter and Warlock, and makes his offense unique (besides all of the mutations he can apply to his attacks). More accurate single attacks retain their niche when you invest significant Ki in one via the empowering 'Fist' Ki Disciplines.

Fair enough.

Also, mind opening the document for comments? I wanted to leave a comment for Inner Eye, because as it's currently worded, it means that your opponent doesn't get their ability modifier added as a bonus to their saving throws, which seems weird and probably not intended.


Also, because I was a derp and forgot to mention it the first time around, despite all the critique I'm giving the class seems well built, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into it, so kudos for that.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-09-02, 06:46 AM
Flurry of Blows feels kinda... out of place. It uses a flat penalty, while they've been trying to move away from that with 5E. It also reminds me a lot of the 3.X Flurry of Blows, which had a lot of problems. Personally, I'd try to port over the 4E version first and see how that works out, but I haven't playtested this yet.

Anyway, aside from that, I like it.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 10:18 AM
@ AgentPaper: I might reduce the level restriction, and/or the number of features effected, but they will ultimately remain. Dip composites were a nadir of 3.5, and I refuse to enable them.

Concerning options, I love them; I prefer optimization by good tactics rather than optimization by build (which is more satisfying IMO). Granted, it could get overtly complex at L20. So far as Ki Disciplines/Monk Techniques go, limiting them to 1/round or turn on a general or individual basis could work. Still, the freedom and fluidity to combine abilities into all kinds of different combos allowing for massive tactical flexibility was definitely a design goal, and something I strongly want to preserve.

Fixed Inner Eye. To be honest, Ki Disciplines will be getting a general overhaul soon. The Ki mechanic was more of a rough conceptual sketch than anything else.

@ Craft (Cheese): Concerning FoB, my initial draft had it take Disadvantage on rolls, rather than -4. While it had a comparable moderating effect on the DPR, you were also rolling 4-6 d20s each round to attack at a minimum!

So far as the DPR goes in comparison to other playtest classes:

Again, concerning FoB + 1d8 Unarmed Strike being 'OP':

DPR, Fighter vs Monk vs Warlock vs Rogue.

Assumptions: 13 AC target, the Fighter uses a 1d8 weapon with level appropriate Expertise dice, the Monk uses Flurry of Blows. Everyone has an +4 ability mod, and the same attack bonus +3/+4:

Fighter (One handed 1d8 weapon + Expertise):

Level 1: (4.5+3.5+4)*.70+(8+6+4)*.05 = 9.3 damage
Level 3: (4.5+4.5+4)*.70+(8+8+4)*.05 = 10.1 damage
Level 5: (4.5+9+4)*.75+(8+16+4)*.05 = 14.525 damage

Monk (1d8 Unarmed Strike + Flurry of Blows @ -4 to hit, and 3rd attack on 2 successful ones):

Level 1: ((4.5+4)*.55*2)+((4.5+4)*(.55^3)) = 10.7641875
Level 3: ((4.5+4)*.55*2)+((4.5+4)*(.55^3)) = 10.7641875 damage
Level 5: ((4.5+4)*.6*2)+((4.5+4)*(.6^3)*2) = 13.872 damage

Warlock (Eldritch Blast + ability modifier; yes, some argue that ability mods don't apply. I balanced on the assumption that they did given the RAW):

Level 1: (3.5*3+4)*.70+(18+4)*.05 = 11.25 damage
Level 3: (3.5*4+4)*.70+(24+4)*.05= 14 damage
Level 5: (3.5*4+4)*.75+(24+4)*.05 = 14.9 damage

Rogue (Katana/Long Bow + Sneak Attack assumed without advantage via Thug; you can use a weaker weapon and it wont matter too much.):
Level 1: (4.5 + 3.5*2+4)*.65+(8 + 12 +4)*.05 = 11.275 damage
Level 3: (4.5 + 3.5*4+4)*.65+(8 + 24 +4)*.05= 16.425 damage
Level 5: (4.5 + 3.5*6+4)*.70+(8 + 36 +4)*.05 = 23.05 damage

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 11:23 AM
For Eldritch Blast, it definitely doesn't add the ability modifier with RAW. RAI it might, but it's very clear in RAW that the bonus is to attack rolls, not damage rolls.

Anyways, Flurry of Blows does seem just fine balance-wise. The fighter should be using a d12 weapon, and in that case they come in right under the monk at level 1, then easily surpass them later on. If anything, you should start removing the -4 penalty to FoB at later levels.

In general, I'd simply warn about the dangers of adding lots of complexity, without actually increasing the depth of the class. Complexity should be something you try to reduce as much as possible, and add only sparingly when the amount of tactical depth it adds is high. For example, I would say that the "did both attacks hit" effect of the Flurry of Blows is probably a bad deal here. It makes the class more complex and makes it take longer to resolve attacks, but it doesn't actually make the choices of the player much more interesting.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 11:39 AM
The How to Play PDF says that Ability mods apply to damage rolls for Magical Attacks. Eldritch Blast is a magical attack, so I can only arrive at that conclusion that it applies per the RAW, if not by the RAI.

Further, the idea isn't complexity, but options, and choice. Giving the player a couple of relatively simplistic individual elements that mix and match to give a vast breadth and depth of tactical choice is a good thing IMO.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 01:10 PM
The How to Play PDF says that Ability mods apply to damage rolls for Magical Attacks. Eldritch Blast is a magical attack, so I can only arrive at that conclusion that it applies per the RAW, if not by the RAI.

It does? Where? The only thing I could find is under the Intelligence entry for magic ability, and even there it just says that you add the bonus to the attack rolls. I could certainly have missed something though.


Further, the idea isn't complexity, but options, and choice. Giving the player a couple of relatively simplistic individual elements that mix and match to give a vast breadth and depth of tactical choice is a good thing IMO.

Yes, that's definitely a good goal, which is why I was worried about the monk as you presented it. As it currently is, you get a lot of options, none of which make that much of a difference on their own, or are so niche that you'll only be using them when they're obviously meant to be used anyways.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 02:30 PM
Damage Rolls
Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target.


Emphasis added. Damage rolls still apply to spells/magical attacks as per the RAW.


Yes, that's definitely a good goal, which is why I was worried about the monk as you presented it. As it currently is, you get a lot of options, none of which make that much of a difference on their own, or are so niche that you'll only be using them when they're obviously meant to be used anyways.

I completely disagree. Some are kind of niche, but rarely to the point where they'll see very constrained use. Typically the maneuvers have interesting tradeoffs that will be consistently applicable like the Meteor Toss (especially with prep; setting up and even hiding Hunting Traps/Caltrops/Ball Bearings before engaging, and throwing people into/beyond them), Disarm (weapons on mobs seem to be pretty common), Practised Dodge (especially with Deflect/Counterstrike), or Tumble. The synergies between Ki Disciplines, attacks and Techniques are beyond apparent. I don't think you're being creative enough in considering the possibilities.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 02:57 PM
Emphasis added. Damage rolls still apply to spells/magical attacks as per the RAW.

"Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target."

By RAW, this means that it doesn't add the bonuses unless it's specified in the spell. It says you add any modifiers, not "add these modifiers". If you really want to get technical, it's saying you add the ability modifier used for the attack, whereas warlocks get the int bonus to their attack roll, not to the attack.

It should probably be worded more clearly, but by RAW you don't add your bonus to the attack. If nothing else, the warlock entry trumps this, since it's more specific, and it very clearly states that the bonus is to the attack roll, not the damage roll.


I completely disagree. Some are kind of niche, but rarely to the point where they'll see very constrained use. Typically the maneuvers have interesting tradeoffs that will be consistently applicable like the Meteor Toss (especially with prep; setting up and even hiding Hunting Traps/Caltrops/Ball Bearings before engaging, and throwing people into/beyond them), Disarm (weapons on mobs seem to be pretty common), Practised Dodge (especially with Deflect/Counterstrike), or Tumble. The synergies between Ki Disciplines, attacks and Techniques are beyond apparent. I don't think you're being creative enough in considering the possibilities.

I definitely think there are possibilities, I just think you can retain the majority of those possibilities while also make the class simpler. Or at least, that's the most major improvement you could make from here, since other than that it all looks very good.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 03:08 PM
Figured I should back up my assertions with an example. I don't want to design the class for you, but this is the kind of thing I had in mind:

Swift Disarm
Benefit: Make a weapon attack against a creature within reach. If you hit, any weapons that creature is wielding are sent flying up to 30 feet in any direction.


Meteor Toss
Benefit: Choose a creature within 5 feet of you. That creature makes a strength save. If it fails, it is thrown up to 20 feet in any direction.
If the target would be thrown into an obstacle or another creature, it and the creature it hits each take damage equal to your strength modifier.

Unless I'm missing something, these present much of the same options as the versions you have, but are much simpler to execute in-game, leading to faster play and less rules to remember.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 05:30 PM
"Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target."

By RAW, this means that it doesn't add the bonuses unless it's specified in the spell. It says you add any modifiers, not "add these modifiers". If you really want to get technical, it's saying you add the ability modifier used for the attack, whereas warlocks get the int bonus to their attack roll, not to the attack.

It should probably be worded more clearly, but by RAW you don't add your bonus to the attack. If nothing else, the warlock entry trumps this, since it's more specific, and it very clearly states that the bonus is to the attack roll, not the damage roll.

That's an incorrect interpretation in my view:

First of all, the part you are bolding doesn't argue against the application of AM; if anything it supports it, as weapons presently only feature damage dice, never modifiers. In otherwords, it's not a summary and exact judgment of the damage a game element deals.

Squinting at it, I can see how you might contrive to argue that it's strictly a procedural that doesn't advocate applying any specific modifiers, but the specific outing of the ability modifier used to make the attack leans towards applying AMs to the damage rolls of magical attacks.

A WotC thread on the matter:

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29341195/Spell_Damage


Concerning your solutions, while I appreciate the intent, it does away with too much verisimilitude and too many synergies; you can no longer counter attack with either SD and MT for example, or use them in conjunction with Circle Kick or Flurry of Blows.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 05:52 PM
A WotC thread on the matter:

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29341195/Spell_Damage

Right. I'll make a post there if I really feel the need to argue further, heh.


Concerning your solutions, while I appreciate the intent, it does away with too much verisimilitude and too many synergies; you can no longer counter attack with either SD and MT for example, or use them in conjunction with Circle Kick or Flurry of Blows.

How does it do away with verisimilitude? As for the synergies, that can be resolved as well:

Flurry of Blows
Benefit: Once per round, whenever you would make an attack with a finesse weapon or use a Monk Technique, you can choose to make a second attack. If you do, both attacks get a -4 penalty to their attack roll, and the DC for any saves they provoke are reduced by 4.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 06:12 PM
Removal of effect scaling with results; removal of a Str/Dex saving throw with a DC set by the attack.

The FoB idea is interesting.

What about counterattack synergies?

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 06:32 PM
Removal of effect scaling with results; removal of a Str/Dex saving throw with a DC set by the attack.

The FoB idea is interesting.

What about counterattack synergies?

You'd just say the same thing in counterstrike and circle kick.

Disarm and Meteor Throw don't seem like they really need to scale much, since they don't have anything to do with hit points, which are the main thing that scales. Still, you could easily have them throw the person/send the weapon flying a number of feet equal to five times your dexterity modifier, for example.

If you want an ability to use a saving throw, then just make it a saving throw, like I did with Meteor Throw. I'd suggest against having both an attack roll and a saving throw, since it just serves to make the ability less powerful and more complicated.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 07:13 PM
You'd just say the same thing in counterstrike and circle kick.

Sure, but why not just keep everything standardized as I have now? Why not keep them as triggered mutators, rather than write in exceptions as per your FoB? I'm not sure I understand why this is such a problem.


Disarm and Meteor Throw don't seem like they really need to scale much, since they don't have anything to do with hit points, which are the main thing that scales. Still, you could easily have them throw the person/send the weapon flying a number of feet equal to five times your dexterity modifier, for example.

Mod scaling is an idea. I do want the effect to improve with the character.


If you want an ability to use a saving throw, then just make it a saving throw, like I did with Meteor Throw. I'd suggest against having both an attack roll and a saving throw, since it just serves to make the ability less powerful and more complicated.

Why does it make it necessarily less powerful? If your attack bonus is +7, and your fixed DC is presumably equal to either 10 + your Dexterity mod, or your Ki DC, then the attack roll is on average _more_ powerful.

Granted attack + saving throw is more complex. Might be inclined to streamline it by having the DC = 10 + your attack bonus + mods.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 07:26 PM
Sure, but why not just keep everything standardized as I have now? Why not keep them as triggered mutators, rather than write in exceptions as per your FoB? I'm not sure I understand why this is such a problem.

It's not a huge problem, but at least to me, it's easier to understand when worded this way. It also has a smaller word count, which is generally a good thing.

It's the difference between "I make an attack, substituting the damage out for Meteor Toss." and "I use Meteor Toss."

Also, while we're on the subject, perhaps Flurry of Blows should be changed into a Monk Technique?


Why does it make it necessarily less powerful? If your attack bonus is +7, and your fixed DC is presumably equal to either 10 + your Dexterity mod, or your Ki DC, then the attack roll is on average _more_ powerful.

Granted attack + saving throw is more complex. Might be inclined to streamline it by having the DC = 10 + your attack bonus + mods.

I was talking about attacks that require both an attack roll and a saving throw. Those are less powerful than abilities that require just one or the other, since it has two chances of missing instead of one.


Also, have you seen my death knight (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x7voIC7PFlDvU6ZUmEwAEitj4MGCVE136-aXO0aafyg/edit) yet? I'd love to hear what you think about it, if you have the time.

Surrealistik
2012-09-02, 07:33 PM
It's not a huge problem, but at least to me, it's easier to understand when worded this way. It also has a smaller word count, which is generally a good thing.

It's the difference between "I make an attack, substituting the damage out for Meteor Toss." and "I use Meteor Toss."

Also, while we're on the subject, perhaps Flurry of Blows should be changed into a Monk Technique?

Why do you have to specify the preamble when it's inherent to using Meteor Toss?

Flurry of Blows is too iconic and central to the Monk to be made into an optional Technique I feel.


I was talking about attacks that require both an attack roll and a saving throw. Those are less powerful than abilities that require just one or the other, since it has two chances of missing instead of one.

The attack roll for techniques that have both an AR and Saving Throw is used purely to determine DC.

AgentPaper
2012-09-02, 08:01 PM
Why do you have to specify the preamble when it's inherent to using Meteor Toss?

Because that's the way you worded it. First you make a normal attack, and then you decide to use Meteor Toss afterwards.


Flurry of Blows is too iconic and central to the Monk to be made into an optional Technique I feel.

I suppose, but at least for me, I wouldn't mind picking up Circle Kick instead. If someone wants Flurry of Blows, then they'll pick Flurry of Blows, so that shouldn't be an issue I'd think.


The attack roll for techniques that have both an AR and Saving Throw is used purely to determine DC.

Huh? Do you mean, you roll an attack, and then your opponent makes a saving throw against your attack roll? That seems weird. There's already rules for determining saving throws for special abilities, it's just DC = 10 + ability mod. You should probably just use that for any abilities that require a saving throw, to keep things simple.


Edit: Oops, meant to link to the GitP Post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254215) for the death knight, rather than the google doc.

Surrealistik
2012-09-03, 12:53 PM
Because that's the way you worded it. First you make a normal attack, and then you decide to use Meteor Toss afterwards.

Just say 'I use Meteor Toss'. Everything else is inherent, since you can't use it without meeting its prerequisites/trigger.


I suppose, but at least for me, I wouldn't mind picking up Circle Kick instead. If someone wants Flurry of Blows, then they'll pick Flurry of Blows, so that shouldn't be an issue I'd think.

Maybe it's a 'sacred cow', but I have to stand with FoB as being a foundational element of the Monk, almost as much as Wizards and spell casting.


Huh? Do you mean, you roll an attack, and then your opponent makes a saving throw against your attack roll? That seems weird. There's already rules for determining saving throws for special abilities, it's just DC = 10 + ability mod. You should probably just use that for any abilities that require a saving throw, to keep things simple.

I don't like the flat DC because it's less dynamic, and denies synergies. I'm not sure why it's so weird; you're basically using the contest rules (maybe I should reference those specifically).

Surrealistik
2012-09-07, 12:52 AM
Consolidated features and 'schools' into the feature 'Disciple of the Fist'.

Reduced the Ki Point count and Ki Disciplines gained at first level to compensate for school benefits.