Where are the unarmed boosting magic items?

[Eslin]

I've been looking through the DMG, and it seems that the person who informed me there would be unarmed/unarmoured boosting options was incorrect.

There is one item of +2 AC when unarmoured and seemingly nothing for boosting unarmed or natural attacks, compared to the large number of swords, staves and maces. Where are all the monk and druid options? Did I just miss them?

[Jlooney]

A monk can use weapons instead if an unarmed attack if needed. As far as Druid goes I have no idea...use a club?

[GiantOctopodes]

I've been looking through the DMG, and it seems that the person who informed me there would be unarmed/unarmoured boosting options was incorrect.

There is one item of +2 AC when unarmoured and seemingly nothing for boosting unarmed or natural attacks, compared to the large number of swords, staves and maces. Where are all the monk and druid options? Did I just miss them?

So I know it's not at all what you're looking for, but I will point out that somewhere in pre-existing magic items is a +3 when unarmoured item, for what it's worth. Not sure if Horde of Dragon Queen, Basic Rules, or what offhand. Not willing to check atm, will post back when I do tomorrow. But that is there, albeit only helpful for a monk.

Otherwise, yeah, I think you're right, there's not much there. Alter form gives +1 d6 magical unarmed attacks as a 2nd level spell (absurdly powerful even before considering its other benefits, doubly so as that is only one of 3 possible effects, another of which completely replaces and improves upon the 3rd level spell water breathing for yourself at least), as a replacement for using monk effects / levels. Giving that away as a 2nd level spell, plus lack of magic item and lack of feat support (let's be real, tavern brawler just isn't that good), tells me they felt monks and druids were already powerful enough, and were deliberately balancing other classes to be in line with them, rather than attempting to offer them equivalent enhancements through magical items.

Also, magic items don't really fit the whole poverty schtick of monks, or the whole "I get everything I need from nature" schtick of druids. So it would make sense to me that they would be balanced to not rely as much on such items, and that design would further make those items less available or useful to them than to other classes that need them more, like Fighters.

[Eslin]

A monk can use weapons instead if an unarmed attack if needed. As far as Druid goes I have no idea...use a club?

I suppose that might fly as an ape or something, but the vast majority of forms fight unarmed.


Otherwise, yeah, I think you're right, there's not much there. Alter form gives +1 d6 magical unarmed attacks as a 2nd level spell (absurdly powerful even before considering its other benefits, doubly so as that is only one of 3 possible effects, another of which completely replaces and improves upon the 3rd level spell water breathing for yourself at least), as a replacement for using monk effects / levels. Giving that away as a 2nd level spell, plus lack of magic item and lack of feat support (let's be real, tavern brawler just isn't that good), tells me they felt monks and druids were already powerful enough, and were deliberately balancing other classes to be in line with them, rather than attempting to offer them equivalent enhancements through magical items.

Also, magic items don't really fit the whole poverty schtick of monks, or the whole "I get everything I need from nature" schtick of druids. So it would make sense to me that they would be balanced to not rely as much on such items, and that design would further make those items less available or useful to them than to other classes that need them more, like Fighters.
I'm really not seeing it. Monks use the same AC/attack scaling system as a fighter does - a level 1 monk has about 16 AC and +5 on his attacks, as does a fighter. At level 11 the monk has about 18 AC and +9 on his attacks, as does the fighter. Start introducing magic items and the monk stays there, while the fighter gains bonuses from his magic weapons and armour that the monk can't compete with.

[Jlooney]

I suppose that might fly as an ape or something, but the vast majority of forms fight unarmed.


I'm really not seeing it. Monks use the same AC/attack scaling system as a fighter does - a level 1 monk has about 16 AC and +5 on his attacks, as does a fighter. At level 11 the monk has about 18 AC and +9 on his attacks, as does the fighter. Start introducing magic items and the monk stays there, while the fighter gains bonuses from his magic weapons and armour that the monk can't compete with.

What about all the extra utility a monk can bring and the extra attacks?

[Giant2005]

So I know it's not at all what you're looking for, but I will point out that somewhere in pre-existing magic items is a +3 when unarmoured item, for what it's worth. Not sure if Horde of Dragon Queen, Basic Rules, or what offhand. Not willing to check atm, will post back when I do tomorrow. But that is there, albeit only helpful for a monk.

Those bracers are good for casters too! And they are from the HotD online supplement.
HotD has a +1 weapon for unarmed and beast attacks too (Main book this time, not supplement) and it is pretty easy to figure out how to modify that into a +2 and +3. It is a bit disappointing DMG didn't come up with any more interesting options like they did with swords and such but I guess the expectation is to be converting those weapons into unarmed equivalents like with everything else.

[Eslin]

What about all the extra utility a monk can bring and the extra attacks?

You'll notice fighter gets extra attacks and utility too, battlemaster and eldritch knight provide tools just as interesting as open hand and four elements do.

[Rilak]

A monk can use weapons instead if an unarmed attack if needed.

No. They can get bonus unarmed attacks when attacking with a monk weapon. They don't get to flurry with monk weapons.

[Person_Man]

I'm guessing that they've retained the old school mentality that because Monks get scaled unarmed damage and lots of other special abilities, they should not get magic unarmed weapons. (For what little its worth, this actually made perfect sense in 1E, when magic items were limited by class). I don't agree with this decision, I'm just guessing at the motivation.

Related question: How does this impact Pact of Blade Warlocks? Presumably their self-created magical weapon will also suck compared to magic weapons at mid-high levels.

[Demonic Spoon]

Related question: How does this impact Pact of Blade Warlocks? Presumably their self-created magical weapon will also suck compared to magic weapons at mid-high levels.


I thought there was specific text which allowed warlocks to use a magic weapon as their pact weapon.

[SharkForce]

I thought there was specific text which allowed warlocks to use a magic weapon as their pact weapon.

there is. problem solved :P

[Glarnog]

Are you talking about the Bracers of Defense from HotDQ? They are in the DMG too, only those make your AC 12 vs 13 when unarmored.

[Grayson01]

I suppose that might fly as an ape or something, but the vast majority of forms fight unarmed.


I'm really not seeing it. Monks use the same AC/attack scaling system as a fighter does - a level 1 monk has about 16 AC and +5 on his attacks, as does a fighter. At level 11 the monk has about 18 AC and +9 on his attacks, as does the fighter. Start introducing magic items and the monk stays there, while the fighter gains bonuses from his magic weapons and armour that the monk can't compete with.

Are there know Dex boosting Items? (Have not got my DMG yet)
That would help a Monk with AC, Unarmed Strike to Hit and Damage.

[Eslin]

Are there know Dex boosting Items? (Have not got my DMG yet)
That would help a Monk with AC, Unarmed Strike to Hit and Damage.

That would also help a fighter in the same way, and the fighter would have the bonuses from weapons and armour.

But since you asked, in the usual way no there aren't. There are five items that set your stat to 19 (headband of intellect sets int to 19, for example), but no dexterity item.

Ioun stones increase the relevant stat by +2, to a max of 20.

Tomes/manuals increase your stat by +2, no max.

It should also be noted that there is a line of giant belts that set your strength to between 21 and 29.

[Giant2005]

That would also help a fighter in the same way, and the fighter would have the bonuses from weapons and armour.
Is that any different though? Monks can get the same stat boosting items + magic weapons + magic robes/bracers. They don't even lose that much by wearing armor instead of Robes if the armor makes the difference.

[Eslin]

Is that any different though? Monks can get the same stat boosting items + magic weapons + magic robes/bracers. They don't even lose that much by wearing armor instead of Robes if the armor makes the difference.
Yes, there's a very large difference. Half the monk's attacks have to be made with their fists, and armouring up both defeats the purpose and takes away their movement speed. And the only item which increases their AC while unarmoured are the +2 bracers of defense - one single item among hundreds in an edition which makes obtaining specific items difficult. Please contrast to the massive amount of magic armour and weapons.

[Giant2005]

Yes, there's a very large difference. Half the monk's attacks have to be made with their fists, and armouring up both defeats the purpose and takes away their movement speed. And the only item which increases their AC while unarmoured are the +2 bracers of defense - one single item among hundreds in an edition which makes obtaining specific items difficult. Please contrast to the massive amount of magic armour and weapons.

There are also +3 bracers but fair call - the odds of getting magic armor are a lot more common.

[Eslin]

There are also +3 bracers but fair call - the odds of getting magic armor are a lot more common.

That pretty much is my problem - there are no provisions or thought of any kind made for monks and druids. Druids at least can use armour - wildshape says things don't automatically reshape for you, but fortunately magic armour has a clause that says it reshapes to fit its wearer, but both are kind of screwed in terms of unarmed attacks. It's not like the idea was such a strange one - there's an item in the published adventures that gives a +1 bonus to unarmed and natural attacks, but nothing in the DMG. How hard would it have been to have a necklace of natural attacks, say it counts as a weapon and add that to the bit saying you can customise what type of magic weapon say a sunblade can be?

[Giant2005]

That pretty much is my problem - there are no provisions or thought of any kind made for monks and druids. Druids at least can use armour - wildshape says things don't automatically reshape for you, but fortunately magic armour has a clause that says it reshapes to fit its wearer, but both are kind of screwed in terms of unarmed attacks. It's not like the idea was such a strange one - there's an item in the published adventures that gives a +1 bonus to unarmed and natural attacks, but nothing in the DMG. How hard would it have been to have a necklace of natural attacks, say it counts as a weapon and add that to the bit saying you can customise what type of magic weapon say a sunblade can be?

That +1 item you are talking about from the adventure is just a +1 weapon. The DMG has them too and they go all the way up to +3.

[Eslin]

That +1 item you are talking about from the adventure is just a +1 weapon. The DMG has them too and they go all the way up to +3.

Whereabouts? That was kind of the point of the thread.

[Giant2005]

Whereabouts? That was kind of the point of the thread.

I'm just talking about the magic item(s) "WEAPON, +1, +2, OR +3" on page 213 of the DMG. The Monk/Beast weapon described in HotDQ is just a +1 Weapon as per that enchantment.

[Eslin]

I'm just talking about the magic item(s) "WEAPON, +1, +2, OR +3" on page 213 of the DMG. The Monk/Beast weapon described in HotDQ is just a +1 Weapon as per that enchantment.

Yeah, I noticed that part. But the DMG itself has no unarmed weapons, we can search through books and combine stuff but the less obvious it is, the less groups will have it.

The book is absolutely full of magic swords from the random chance table, so almost every group will end up with some.

It's empty of, say, halberds. So some DMs will have customised weapons and have things like a flametongue halberd, but some won't. And even amongst the ones that do, there will often be a bunch more swords anyway because they rolled on the random tables or just picked stuff from the book. Same reason there will be more belts of 29 strength than of 29 intelligence.

The more steps it takes to actually have an item exist, the less likely it is to do so. The DMG itself gives no examples of unarmed boosting items, and makes no mention of the possibility, so there will be plenty of groups with ten magic swords and hammers and staves so far but nothing for a bear or unarmed guy.

[Slipperychicken]

Couldn't we just give them +1 body wraps (also +2 and +3 versions), say it's a magic weapon which applies its bonus to unarmed attacks, and be done with it?

For armor, we could have a +1 gi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karate_gi) (also +2 and +3 versions), say it takes the armor slot, adds its bonus to AC while unarmored, and it doesn't stack with normal armor.

Was that really so hard?

[Eslin]

Couldn't we just give them +1 body wraps (also +2 and +3 versions), say it's a magic weapon which applies its bonus to unarmed attacks, and be done with it?

For armor, we could have a +1 gi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karate_gi) (also +2 and +3 versions), say it takes the armor slot, adds its bonus to AC while unarmored, and it doesn't stack with normal armor.

Was that really so hard?

It isn't. It's not difficult at all, the mechanics for it existed in previous editions and could easily have been used here.

Now imagine that the reverse was the case, that there were items that added +3 and 1d6 fire damage to your unarmed attacks and items all over the place that boosted AC only when unarmoured, but no magic weapons or armour.

People would point to the unarmed/unarmoured boosting items and say 'why does the DMG not have any magical weapons or armour?'. And they'd be right to ask it, and saying 'you can just invent equivalents' wouldn't be an explanation for why there weren't any.

[Slipperychicken]

People would point to the unarmed/unarmoured boosting items and say 'why does the DMG not have any magical weapons or armour?'. And they'd be right to ask it, and saying 'you can just invent equivalents' wouldn't be an explanation for why there weren't any.

They'll probably end up giving us another Amulet of Natural Attacks in this edition's magic item book, or putting a sidebar in DMG2 which says "hey, you can make magic weapons and armor for monks too".

[Malifice]

Monks benefit from Wis boosting items way more so that a Fighter.

Plus, bracers of protection stacks with Unarmored defence so that evens up the AC issue for all but heavily decked out sword and board Fighters.

Nothing stopping monks using magic Monk weapons also.

Monks may get slightly less utility with weapons and armor choices than Fighters. But I dont mind that. The Monk is already a very strong class in 5e.

[Eslin]

Monks benefit from Wis boosting items way more so that a Fighter.

Plus, bracers of protection stacks with Unarmored defence so that evens up the AC issue for all but heavily decked out sword and board Fighters.

Nothing stopping monks using magic Monk weapons also.

Monks may get slightly less utility with weapons and armor choices than Fighters. But I dont mind that. The Monk is already a very strong class in 5e.
Half of the monk's attacks have to be made with unarmed strikes.

With maximum wisdom and dexterity (a monk benefits from a wisdom item more than a fighter, but only does so because it needs three stats as opposed to a fighter's two) a monk has 20 armour class. Add the bracers (one single item amongst hundreds, so much rarer than magical weapons or armour) and you get to 22, though that's unrealistic because a monk rarely has enough stats to maximise both stats and still have a decent constitution.

Contrast the fighter who starts at 30 in plate if he didn't take defense style and can be brought to 26 with a +3 armour and +3 shield.

[Gwendol]

Looks like you made a typo. I'm assuming the starting AC to be 20?

[Malifice]

Half of the monk's attacks have to be made with unarmed strikes.

With maximum wisdom and dexterity (a monk benefits from a wisdom item more than a fighter, but only does so because it needs three stats as opposed to a fighter's two) a monk has 20 armour class. Add the bracers (one single item amongst hundreds, so much rarer than magical weapons or armour) and you get to 22, though that's unrealistic because a monk rarely has enough stats to maximise both stats and still have a decent constitution.

Contrast the fighter who starts at 30 in plate if he didn't take defense style and can be brought to 26 with a +3 armour and +3 shield.

We're handing the Fighter 2 legendary items and calling it even against a Monk with nothing more than a pair of bracers?

Lets be a little realistic here. +3 Items dont grow on trees in 5th edition.

Also: No Fighter starts at AC 20. Check out the cost of Full Plate in the PHB. It doesnt show up in most games till around at least 3rd level, and its a major acomplishment when it does happen.

My Fighter/ Paladin has just upgraded his Chain mail to Banded (or whatever is next up) and im feeling quite chuffed. And Im 3rd level.

[Eslin]

Yes, I know. And no monk starts at 20 dex/20 wis. The fighter gets plate a chunk before the monk could get both, but in general they both increase gradually. And then the monk stops increasing because there are no items that will boost him and the fighter keeps increasing because for him there are.

[Malifice]

Yes, I know. And no monk starts at 20 dex/20 wis. The fighter gets plate a chunk before the monk could get both, but in general they both increase gradually. And then the monk stops increasing because there are no items that will boost him and the fighter keeps increasing because for him there are.

Monks stats (znd thus AC) are technically infinite. Tomes and all that jazz.

Also; I have no problem with a sword and board fighter kitted out in legendary armour and shield having a higher AC than the guy standing next to him in a karate outfit.

The karate guy has much better saves (and other defences) than the metal clad BFG.

Works in my mind.

[Eslin]

Monks stats (znd thus AC) are technically infinite. Tomes and all that jazz.

Also; I have no problem with a sword and board fighter kitted out in legendary armour and shield having a higher AC than the guy standing next to him in a karate outfit.

The karate guy has much better saves (and other defences) than the metal clad BFG.

Works in my mind.

Except the armour and shield don't provide better protection than the monk's abilities, they both cap at 20. It's the magical enhancements that let the fighter boost past that, something the monk for some arbitrary reason has no access to.

[Giant2005]

And then the monk stops increasing because there are no items that will boost him and the fighter keeps increasing because for him there are.

There is exactly the same chance of a Monk finding +3 Robes/Bracers as there is a Fighter finding +3 Full Plate. There is a much higher chance of finding magic armor than Robes or Bracers but that isn't true of something as specific as +3 Full Plate.

[Malifice]

Except the armour and shield don't provide better protection than the monk's abilities, they both cap at 20. It's the magical enhancements that let the fighter boost past that, something the monk for some arbitrary reason has no access to.

Monks can magically enhance AC over 20 as well. Tomes can push both Wisdom and Dex over 20. Rings of protection, monks robes, bracers of protection and so forth can push it higher.

I have no problem with a dedicated sword and board fighter in full plate and decked out with legendary armor and shield having a ridiculously high AC - yes, even higher than the unarmored Monk.

[Eslin]

There is exactly the same chance of a Monk finding +3 Robes/Bracers as there is a Fighter finding +3 Full Plate. There is a much higher chance of finding magic armor than Robes or Bracers but that isn't true of something as specific as +3 Full Plate.

But those don't exist. There is one type item that grants +2 in existence, no special items like demon armour or dwarven plate, nothing on the random tables. That I can create things like +3 or unique bracers or amulets of defense and attack doesn't change the fact that as-is, such things don't exist. Imagine if you opened the DMG and it had no magical weapons or armour at all, except for one shield that gave 2 extra AC. Sure, you could invent a wide variety of stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't bother including any.

[Fwiffo86]

That would also help a fighter in the same way, and the fighter would have the bonuses from weapons and armour.

But since you asked, in the usual way no there aren't. There are five items that set your stat to 19 (headband of intellect sets int to 19, for example), but no dexterity item.

Ioun stones increase the relevant stat by +2, to a max of 20.

Tomes/manuals increase your stat by +2, no max.

It should also be noted that there is a line of giant belts that set your strength to between 21 and 29.

Monks have the option of using either str or dex for their attack and damage scores. All you are losing here, is dex bonus to AC.

[Eslin]

Monks have the option of using either str or dex for their attack and damage scores. All you are losing here, is dex bonus to AC.

Um, ok? I was answering a question about stat boosting items existing, what's that got to do with monks? The 29 strength belt shouldn't exist at all, it breaks pretty much every design rule in the history of ever.

[Fwiffo86]

Um, ok? I was answering a question about stat boosting items existing, what's that got to do with monks? The 29 strength belt shouldn't exist at all, it breaks pretty much every design rule in the history of ever.

Except.... half the game is built on the principle that bad guys can and do have STR up to 30. It is part of the design.

and...

I'm sorry, I thought you were saying it was a bad choice for Monks because they use Dex. My misunderstanding.

[thepsyker]

No. They can get bonus unarmed attacks when attacking with a monk weapon. They don't get to flurry with monk weapons.

They get two weapon attacks and two unarmed attacks with flurry of blows at fifth level, which means they are getting a comparable number of magic weapon attacks, and thus benefit, as a magic weapon equipped Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Valor Bard or even fighter under the 11th level. Fighters get more benefit out of a magic weapon than a monk after they acquire their third attack, but that is true for fighters in comparison to any of the other martial classes not just monks and is one of the benefits of being a fighter.

I don't have my book on hand, but don't monks eventually get an ability that lets them naturally count their unarmed attacks as magical for getting past monster resistances? That would be the main reason I can think of for a need for an unarmed magic item.

[Eslin]

Except.... half the game is built on the principle that bad guys can and do have STR up to 30. It is part of the design.

and...

I'm sorry, I thought you were saying it was a bad choice for Monks because they use Dex. My misunderstanding.

Sweet, lets go ahead and give the players legendary actions since bad guys can do that.


They get two weapon attacks and two unarmed attacks with flurry of blows at fifth level, which means they are getting a comparable number of magic weapon attacks, and thus benefit, as a magic weapon equipped Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Valor Bard or even fighter under the 11th level. Fighters get more benefit out of a magic weapon than a monk after they acquire their third attack, but that is true for fighters in comparison to any of the other martial classes not just monks and is one of the benefits of being a fighter.

I don't have my book on hand, but don't monks eventually get an ability that lets them naturally count their unarmed attacks as magical for getting past monster resistances? That would be the main reason I can think of for a need for an unarmed magic item.
As opposed to, say, monks and druids and anyone else who wants to fight without weapons getting shafted compared to the weapon users? It's not like stuff like this wasn't part of D&D. Amulet of mighty fists, ki focuses, necklace of natural attacks...

[Fwiffo86]

Sweet, lets go ahead and give the players legendary actions since bad guys can do that.

As boons at level 20? Why not? I don't see a problem there.

[thepsyker]

As opposed to, say, monks and druids and anyone else who wants to fight without weapons getting shafted compared to the weapon users? It's not like stuff like this wasn't part of D&D. Amulet of mighty fists, ki focuses, necklace of natural attacks...

Decisions have consequences. If you choose not to take advantage of all the options available to you you will be less effective then someone who does take advantage of those options. It is no different then a wizard who chooses not to use staffs or wands being less effective then a wizard that does use those tools.

I agree it would have been nice to have the items you mentioned, but space is limited and there are more classes that can make use of magic weapons then there are the items you mentioned so the designers get more bang for their buck by including more magic weapons and those items absence doesn't damage either class as a whole, it just means that if someone chooses to limit their options they will less effective then someone who doesn't.

[Eslin]

Decisions have consequences. If you choose not to take advantage of all the options available to you you will be less effective then someone who does take advantage of those options. It is no different then a wizard who chooses not to use staffs or wands being less effective then a wizard that does use those tools.

I agree it would have been nice to have the items you mentioned, but space is limited and there are more classes that can make use of magic weapons then there are the items you mentioned so the designers get more bang for their buck by including more magic weapons and those items absence doesn't damage either class as a whole, it just means that if someone chooses to limit their options they will less effective then someone who doesn't.

Not how that works. The monk chooses not to wear weapons or armour, and that contains its own consequences, which are dealt with without magic items. Once magic items are introduced, everyone should benefit from them equally.

And limited space wise - by the tenth different magic sword they put in there, was such a sword honestly a better use of space than having a single attack item for two of the twelve classes?





Side note, and an important one: Any justification along the lines of 'the classes were balanced this way' is wrong. Flat out wrong, no ifs or buts. All classes should be balanced to be equal to each other when they have magic items and all classes should be balanced to be equal to each other when they don't. Why? Because unlike 3.5 or 4e, 5e has no set level of magic item usage. There can be a no, low, medium or high level of magic items in the game. If class A gets more use out of magic items than class B, then either class A is stronger when they both have magic items or class B is stronger when they don't.

[Fwiffo86]

Side note, and an important one: Any justification along the lines of 'the classes were balanced this way' is wrong. Flat out wrong, no ifs or buts. All classes should be balanced to be equal to each other when they have magic items and all classes should be balanced to be equal to each other when they don't. Why? Because unlike 3.5 or 4e, 5e has no set level of magic item usage. There can be a no, low, medium or high level of magic items in the game. If class A gets more use out of magic items than class B, then either class A is stronger when they both have magic items or class B is stronger when they don't.

Not that I take issue with your logic here in its basic form, but this is an impossibility.

By my interpretation of this either, no one gets magic items (and we have people complaining that martials are not equal to casters) or we have magic items (and we have people complaining that casters aren't as well off as martials).

This seems like just another way to take issue with perceived balance issues that may, or may not exist at specific tables.

[thepsyker]

Not how that works. The monk chooses not to wear weapons or armour, and that contains its own consequences, which are dealt with without magic items. Once magic items are introduced, everyone should benefit from them equally.

They do benefit from them equally. A barbarian and a monk benefit equally from any of the magic weapons available to them. It is just when the monk chooses not to use those magic weapons available to them that they don't benefit from them. If the monk didn't have the option to use magic weapons then they would be benefiting differently, as it is if they chose not to use magic weapons they are benefiting exactly the same as a barbarian who chooses not to use magic weapons.

[Eslin]

Not that I take issue with your logic here in its basic form, but this is an impossibility.

By my interpretation of this either, no one gets magic items (and we have people complaining that martials are not equal to casters) or we have magic items (and we have people complaining that casters aren't as well off as martials).

This seems like just another way to take issue with perceived balance issues that may, or may not exist at specific tables.

Seems pretty logical to me. Class A is A, class B is B, items are I. = means equal in overall use, not identical. If B gets more use out of magic items than A, then either
A>B
or
AI<BI
and neither of those are good. That means that in a low or no magic game, B gets shafted, or that in a medium or high magic game A gets shafted. The only solution is
A=B
and
AI=BI

[LuthielValkire]

Those bracers are good for casters too! And they are from the HotD online supplement.
HotD has a +1 weapon for unarmed and beast attacks too (Main book this time, not supplement) and it is pretty easy to figure out how to modify that into a +2 and +3. It is a bit disappointing DMG didn't come up with any more interesting options like they did with swords and such but I guess the expectation is to be converting those weapons into unarmed equivalents like with everything else.

This is exactly what I would do in my campaigns.

I think what we see from the DMG is a core list of magic items. With the adventures, we're likely to see much more in the way of unique campaign specific stuff. However, I do think the core should have included a note to the point that 'magic beast claws' also counted as a magic weapon.

[SharkForce]

Not that I take issue with your logic here in its basic form, but this is an impossibility.

By my interpretation of this either, no one gets magic items (and we have people complaining that martials are not equal to casters) or we have magic items (and we have people complaining that casters aren't as well off as martials).

This seems like just another way to take issue with perceived balance issues that may, or may not exist at specific tables.

wizards are generally speaking not suffering from a lack of items that boost unarmed and/or natural weapons. you're projecting your own issues into this discussion. (they also have their own items anyways, and it still remains a point that wizards *should* be made equally valuable to fighters without magic items, and they should both be equally good *with* magic items... whether that was accomplished or not is something that seems to be a popular subject of discussion in general, but it is not the subject of *this* thread.

and he does have a valid point about class balance. obviously, perfect equality need not exist (that would require each character to be identical, really), but it should be possible to come close enough that everyone contributes mostly equally in a variety of situations.

[Fwiffo86]

wizards are generally speaking not suffering from a lack of items that boost unarmed and/or natural weapons. you're projecting your own issues into this discussion. (they also have their own items anyways, and it still remains a point that wizards *should* be made equally valuable to fighters without magic items, and they should both be equally good *with* magic items... whether that was accomplished or not is something that seems to be a popular subject of discussion in general, but it is not the subject of *this* thread.

and he does have a valid point about class balance. obviously, perfect equality need not exist (that would require each character to be identical, really), but it should be possible to come close enough that everyone contributes mostly equally in a variety of situations.

Actually, that is in fact the point. Just because Belt give 29 str, doesn't mean Magic Staff should give 29 Int. The metrics are different (saves vs hit rolls; damage vs spell damage). Complaining that one item seems more powerful to one class is a silly argument for the reasons you have listed above.

[SharkForce]

Actually, that is in fact the point. Just because Belt give 29 str, doesn't mean Magic Staff should give 29 Int. The metrics are different (saves vs hit rolls; damage vs spell damage). Complaining that one item seems more powerful to one class is a silly argument for the reasons you have listed above.

is it?

funny. i could've swore that this thread, entitled "Where are the unarmed boosting magic items?", was about discussing the lack of magic items that boost unarmed combat (and natural attacks) in the way that weapons do. hold on, let me check by actually looking at the posts in this thread instead of making baseless assumptions:

*looks*

yup. definitely about items that boost unarmed combat and natural attacks.

you wanna talk about the belt of giant strength, go to the thread that's about the belt of giant strength. this one is about +1 handwraps, amulet of mighty fists +1, and so on.

[pwykersotz]

is it?

funny. i could've swore that this thread, entitled "Where are the unarmed boosting magic items?", was about discussing the lack of magic items that boost unarmed combat (and natural attacks) in the way that weapons do. hold on, let me check by actually looking at the posts in this thread instead of making baseless assumptions:

*looks*

yup. definitely about items that boost unarmed combat and natural attacks.

you wanna talk about the belt of giant strength, go to the thread that's about the belt of giant strength. this one is about +1 handwraps, amulet of mighty fists +1, and so on.

That'll be tough to only talk about, since they don't exist. :smallwink:

[Fwiffo86]

you wanna talk about the belt of giant strength, go to the thread that's about the belt of giant strength. this one is about +1 handwraps, amulet of mighty fists +1, and so on.

And yet, the Monk's unarmed strikes count as magical, so no need for a magic handwrap. A belt provides the bonus to hit and damage as the monk can elect to use his STR if it would be more beneficial.

Thus (magic hand strike) +10 to hit and damage that strikes creatures immune to non-magical weapons. Magic hand wraps not needed.

As far as the druid....

Alter Self provides a built in +1 to "claw and bite" attacks. I would see no problem with applying that to a shifting druid at the same time a monk receives theirs. And as the example above, no +1 talisman of biting needed. Unless you want to argue that the druid's magic items cease functioning when shifted. But that would be a different argument all together.

You don't need a new magic item. You need to pay attention to what is already there.

[JoeJ]

is it?

funny. i could've swore that this thread, entitled "Where are the unarmed boosting magic items?", was about discussing the lack of magic items that boost unarmed combat (and natural attacks) in the way that weapons do. hold on, let me check by actually looking at the posts in this thread instead of making baseless assumptions:

*looks*

yup. definitely about items that boost unarmed combat and natural attacks.

you wanna talk about the belt of giant strength, go to the thread that's about the belt of giant strength. this one is about +1 handwraps, amulet of mighty fists +1, and so on.

Hunh? A belt of giant strength is an unarmed boosting magic item.

[Eslin]

Hunh? A belt of giant strength is an unarmed boosting magic item.

No, it's an item which boosts any strength based attack, available to anyone who uses such attacks.

I'm asking for equivalents to the +1/2/3 bonuses a fighter can get on his weapons/armour/shield and the various unique examples of said equipment such as the flametongue or dwarven armour.

[SliceandDiceKid]

And yet, the Monk's unarmed strikes count as magical, so no need for a magic handwrap. A belt provides the bonus to hit and damage as the monk can elect to use his STR if it would be more beneficial.

Thus (magic hand strike) +10 to hit and damage that strikes creatures immune to non-magical weapons. Magic hand wraps not needed.

As far as the druid....

Alter Self provides a built in +1 to "claw and bite" attacks. I would see no problem with applying that to a shifting druid at the same time a monk receives theirs. And as the example above, no +1 talisman of biting needed. Unless you want to argue that the druid's magic items cease functioning when shifted. But that would be a different argument all together.

You don't need a new magic item. You need to pay attention to what is already there.

Ironic. It seems like you're the one who isn't paying attention.

on a less confrontational note:
Monks are definitely missing out on love from the DMG. Yeah giant str belts are cool, but everyone benefits equally from that item. I'm down with what eslin is saying.

[Fwiffo86]

No, it's an item which boosts any strength based attack, available to anyone who uses such attacks.

I'm asking for equivalents to the +1/2/3 bonuses a fighter can get on his weapons/armour/shield and the various unique examples of said equipment such as the flametongue or dwarven armour.

I am having a hard time with this given the monk in particular. You want armor equivalents for a class that doesn't use armor? Miscellaneous +1/2/3 bonuses on Weapons the class that (traditionally) doesn't use? Though I can see the desire for flaming hands (flametongue) certainly, that makes sense.

I suppose my issue is that I'm 1st edition Monk school. Where they didn't have magic items because they didn't need them for any reason. Comparatively speaking... the warrior's base tool is a weapon. A non-magical hunk of material that never changes. The monk on the other hand uses no such tool, instead empowers his own fists to be more than normal weapons. That says magic item to me.

I see absolutely no need for monks to need their own versions of Flametongue, or Icebrand. They do have the option of using say a shortsword version of it thanks to their proficiencies. If you want the magic item, use the magic item, nothing is stopping you. The Monk is just as capable with or without said weapon.

Armor for the monk is a separate issue entirely. I cannot feasibly think of any reason for a monk to actually require magical armor. They already have enhanced reaction time, reflexes and training that circumvents the need for armor. Aside from pure munchkining desire to have the highest AC possible, thematically there is no precedent for it.

Hiding behind Class Z gets this, so should the Monk, is ludicrous. The monk is specifically designed to NOT NEED magic items more so than any other character class.

[Eslin]

And yet, the Monk's unarmed strikes count as magical, so no need for a magic handwrap. A belt provides the bonus to hit and damage as the monk can elect to use his STR if it would be more beneficial.

Thus (magic hand strike) +10 to hit and damage that strikes creatures immune to non-magical weapons. Magic hand wraps not needed.

As far as the druid....

Alter Self provides a built in +1 to "claw and bite" attacks. I would see no problem with applying that to a shifting druid at the same time a monk receives theirs. And as the example above, no +1 talisman of biting needed. Unless you want to argue that the druid's magic items cease functioning when shifted. But that would be a different argument all together.

You don't need a new magic item. You need to pay attention to what is already there.
You're the one not paying attention. Not sure why I need to repeat this so often, but asymmetric gains from class levels and items can only be balanced for one specific level of magic item availability. If each class gains approximately the same from both class levels and items, you can have anywhere from no items or as many magic items as you can carry and they'll stay equal - if you want one class to gain more from levels (in your example), monk and one to gain more from items (fighter), then they can only be balanced for a specific level of magic item usage - above that amount a fighter will be better than a monk and below that amount a monk will be better than a fighter.

This might have worked for 3.5 or 4e, which both assume a specific level of gold and magic item availability and are balanced around it (though using the word 'balanced' in 3.5's case is a bit silly, at least they tried), but 5e lacks so much as a guideline for what level of magic items a party should have. It can be and is run with anywhere from no to low to very high magic item usage, so in order to keep things equal classes need to gain equal benefit from class levels and magic items. Besides, that's the entire point of class levels - they won't be able to do the same things, but in general 20 levels of monk and 20 levels of fighter are supposed to be equally good. That's the entire point.


I am having a hard time with this given the monk in particular. You want armor equivalents for a class that doesn't use armor? Miscellaneous +1/2/3 bonuses on Weapons the class that (traditionally) doesn't use? Though I can see the desire for flaming hands (flametongue) certainly, that makes sense.

I suppose my issue is that I'm 1st edition Monk school. Where they didn't have magic items because they didn't need them for any reason. Comparatively speaking... the warrior's base tool is a weapon. A non-magical hunk of material that never changes. The monk on the other hand uses no such tool, instead empowers his own fists to be more than normal weapons. That says magic item to me.

I see absolutely no need for monks to need their own versions of Flametongue, or Icebrand. They do have the option of using say a shortsword version of it thanks to their proficiencies. If you want the magic item, use the magic item, nothing is stopping you. The Monk is just as capable with or without said weapon.

Armor for the monk is a separate issue entirely. I cannot feasibly think of any reason for a monk to actually require magical armor. They already have enhanced reaction time, reflexes and training that circumvents the need for armor. Aside from pure munchkining desire to have the highest AC possible, thematically there is no precedent for it.

Hiding behind Class Z gets this, so should the Monk, is ludicrous. The monk is specifically designed to NOT NEED magic items more so than any other character class.
I've already said this, I shouldn't need to again. A is monk, B is fighter, I is magic items.

If B gets more use out of magic items than A, then either
A>B
or
AI<BI
and neither of those are good. That means that in a low or no magic game, B gets shafted, or that in a medium or high magic game A gets shafted. The only solution is
A=B
and
AI=BI

so where are the unarmed/unarmoured magical items?

And again, this is not about the armour or weapons themselves. Greatsword vs fists and plate armour vs clothing is sorted out by the classes themselves, they both function fine. The fighter has something of an advantage there, but that's fine, the monk has other strengths. Equal in capability, but not identical. It's the magic items that boost those things - a fighter gets plenty of options ranging from +1 to +3 on anything he wants to wear, but a monk has nothing.

Repeated once more, because I have no idea how this isn't very clear by this point, this is not about the armour or weapons themselves. This is about the fact that armed and armoured characters gain a huge slew of bonuses from magic items that unarmed/unarmoured characters cannot - saying this is because an unarmoured character doesn't need magic items is stupid, we've established the parity of the equipment when it's mundane, when magic comes in there is no reason all characters shouldn't be able to benefit.

[archaeo]

Repeated once more, because I have no idea how this isn't very clear by this point, this is not about the armour or weapons themselves. This is about the fact that armed and armoured characters gain a huge slew of bonuses from magic items that unarmed/unarmoured characters cannot - saying this is because an unarmoured character doesn't need magic items is stupid, we've established the parity of the equipment when it's mundane, when magic comes in there is no reason all characters shouldn't be able to benefit.

But monks aren't barred from using magic items, they just don't have unarmed magic weapons. You can still fill the monk's three attunement slots with incredible and useful items; Boots of Speed, Bracers of Defense, Cloak of Arachnida, Helm of Teleportation, numerous Ioun Stones, Mantle of Spell Resistance, tons of rings, etc., etc., I'm bored of flipping through the items.

This all assuming that the DM never gives you a magical simple martial weapon; a lot of the magic weapons say "any sword," and I'd have no problem reading that to include shortswords, which are explicitly allowed. Not that monks really have to worry about magic weapons, since their fist become magical at level 6. As for AC, monks can either a) find the tomes that can boost Dex or Wis above 20, or b) avoid being hit through non-AC defensive stuff, which isn't hard with the monk's skillset and good magic item selection.

As for druids, who cares. In druid form, they can enjoy any kind of magical item. Keeping their beast forms from having magical weapons is a feature, not a bug, likewise with magic armor.

Edited to add: as an aside, do boots of speed stack with the monk's intrinsic speed bonus? Those boots plus the Cloak of Arachnida would be absolutely ridiculous. Meep meep!

[Eslin]

But monks aren't barred from using magic items, they just don't have unarmed magic weapons. You can still fill the monk's three attunement slots with incredible and useful items; Boots of Speed, Bracers of Defense, Cloak of Arachnida, Helm of Teleportation, numerous Ioun Stones, Mantle of Spell Resistance, tons of rings, etc., etc., I'm bored of flipping through the items.

This all assuming that the DM never gives you a magical simple martial weapon; a lot of the magic weapons say "any sword," and I'd have no problem reading that to include shortswords, which are explicitly allowed. Not that monks really have to worry about magic weapons, since their fist become magical at level 6. As for AC, monks can either a) find the tomes that can boost Dex or Wis above 20, or b) avoid being hit through non-AC defensive stuff, which isn't hard with the monk's skillset and good magic item selection.

As for druids, who cares. In druid form, they can enjoy any kind of magical item. Keeping their beast forms from having magical weapons is a feature, not a bug, likewise with magic armor.

Edited to add: as an aside, do boots of speed stack with the monk's intrinsic speed bonus? Those boots plus the Cloak of Arachnida would be absolutely ridiculous. Meep meep!

Despite the severe lack of monk usable magic weapons, even if a monk obtains one they can't use it on half their attacks. And no, that does not even them out with the other martial classes - paladins, barbarians etc will be attacking three times with that weapon and will have some form of extra damage on their attacks that increases how useful the + on the weapon is.

And yes, a monk can use a bunch of other items - though it should be noted that a fighter in a +3 suit of plate armour, with a +3 shield and a +3 weapon still has three attunement slots left. The fact still remains that once magic equipment starts happening armed and armoured martials start gaining boosts that unarmed/armoured martials cannot, and this difference is not because of the actual equipment but the lack of enchantments for certain combat styles. Seriously, 3.5 had some unarmoured/unarmed boosting stuff and 4e made certain classes like monks had equipment parity with classes like fighters, what the hell happened to make them forget they'd already worked out how to design this stuff?

[GiantOctopodes]

You're the one not paying attention. Not sure why I need to repeat this so often, but asymmetric gains from class levels and items can only be balanced for one specific level of magic item availability. If each class gains approximately the same from both class levels and items, you can have anywhere from no items or as many magic items as you can carry and they'll stay equal - if you want one class to gain more from levels (in your example), monk and one to gain more from items (fighter), then they can only be balanced for a specific level of magic item usage - above that amount a fighter will be better than a monk and below that amount a monk will be better than a fighter.

This might have worked for 3.5 or 4e, which both assume a specific level of gold and magic item availability and are balanced around it (though using the word 'balanced' in 3.5's case is a bit silly, at least they tried), but 5e lacks so much as a guideline for what level of magic items a party should have. It can be and is run with anywhere from no to low to very high magic item usage, so in order to keep things equal classes need to gain equal benefit from class levels and magic items. Besides, that's the entire point of class levels - they won't be able to do the same things, but in general 20 levels of monk and 20 levels of fighter are supposed to be equally good. That's the entire point.


I've already said this, I shouldn't need to again. A is monk, B is fighter, I is magic items.

If B gets more use out of magic items than A, then either
A>B
or
AI<BI
and neither of those are good. That means that in a low or no magic game, B gets shafted, or that in a medium or high magic game A gets shafted. The only solution is
A=B
and
AI=BI

so where are the unarmed/unarmoured magical items?

And again, this is not about the armour or weapons themselves. Greatsword vs fists and plate armour vs clothing is sorted out by the classes themselves, they both function fine. The fighter has something of an advantage there, but that's fine, the monk has other strengths. Equal in capability, but not identical. It's the magic items that boost those things - a fighter gets plenty of options ranging from +1 to +3 on anything he wants to wear, but a monk has nothing.

Repeated once more, because I have no idea how this isn't very clear by this point, this is not about the armour or weapons themselves. This is about the fact that armed and armoured characters gain a huge slew of bonuses from magic items that unarmed/unarmoured characters cannot - saying this is because an unarmoured character doesn't need magic items is stupid, we've established the parity of the equipment when it's mundane, when magic comes in there is no reason all characters shouldn't be able to benefit.

I understand where you're coming from, but you of all people should realize that isn't the way it works. A Fighter, gaining 4 attacks, gets more benefit from a +3 sword than a Rogue does. A Cleric, having an AC of 20 with his full plate and shield, gets more benefit from a +3 set of armour to replace his than a warlock does getting a +3 set of studded leather, as the proportional impact of increasing AC increases the higher the AC value already is. Parity of magic items is not obtained by offering the same bonuses to every class.

That being said, the monks *do* have +3 AC items (in the HotDQ online supplement) and though they are not on the premade random tables, they exist in the game universe as a published material and can be freely inserted wherever and however you wish, whether on that table or just in that treasure pile directly. +3 monk weapons certainly exist, as well. True, there are no weapons that give +3 to unarmed attacks or to spells, but that does not inherently indicate a balance problem. The complaint should rather be, in my eyes, that they do not have anything which provides a comparable increase in performance. As I don't have a DMG, I cannot say with certainty whether or not that is indeed the case, but that would be a more valid cause for complaint. Whether that comes in the form of something that lets them negate resistance or add an ability modifier to damage for spells, or provides a recovery of 1 ki point on a successful hit, or whatever the case may be, it is certainly true that if class balance exists without magic items (a point debatable in its own right, but that is your premise so we'll stick with it) then in order for it to exist with magic items they must provide equal benefit. But equal benefit does not, at all, mean the same benefit, as that would inherently result in unequal impact from unequal ability to use that benefit.

It can be argued (I believe correctly) that +1 to +3 "generic" magic items inherently break the game, on a variety of levels. This would seem to be proof of that. I personally don't like them, and would rather play without them. If this is a strong sticking point to you, I would suggest you do the same.

[archaeo]

Despite the severe lack of monk usable magic weapons, even if a monk obtains one they can't use it on half their attacks. And no, that does not even them out with the other martial classes - paladins, barbarians etc will be attacking three times with that weapon and will have some form of extra damage on their attacks that increases how useful the + on the weapon is.

There are any number of "monk usable magic weapons" - you just make them into a simple martial weapon. As for the other hands, so what? Their other hand is a magic weapon that scales with level, and hardly leaves them far behind. They get two attacks, so two shortsword (or whatever) swings and two punches, throwing extra damage and effects in with ki as necessary. It's hardly a huge nerf that they just get two weapon swings.


And yes, a monk can use a bunch of other items - though it should be noted that a fighter in a +3 suit of plate armour, with a +3 shield and a +3 weapon still has three attunement slots left.

Lucky fighter, having all those legendary and very rare items rain down on their head! Items that the DM has to personally approve.


The fact still remains that once magic equipment starts happening armed and armoured martials start gaining boosts that unarmed/armoured martials cannot, and this difference is not because of the actual equipment but the lack of enchantments for certain combat styles. Seriously, 3.5 had some unarmoured/unarmed boosting stuff and 4e made certain classes like monks had equipment parity with classes like fighters, what the hell happened to make them forget they'd already worked out how to design this stuff?

Presumably, what happened was they selected a totally different paradigm for handling magic items with the assumption that a DM is the best person to make a decision about what sort of junk they want to give the players. Give them items, throw some encounters at them, see where the party's at, adjust your CR expectations. Or don't give them items and run it by the book. The point is, they worked out how to design it, saw it as a superfluous and ridiculous set of rules, and tossed it out in favor of the expectation that DMs aren't mouth-breathing idiots. It more or less says, "don't mess with attunement, which will keep you from making super PCs, and otherwise just use common sense to keep people from loading up on necklaces."

It is incredibly and easily possible to be super generous to the fighter and let the monk keep up. Give them a blessing or a charm, give them an epic boon if you want. There are "other rewards," as the DMG says, that you can provide. Put together a robe that gives +3 AC, change one of the magical weapons into a fist item. Whatever works.

[Eslin]

I understand where you're coming from, but you of all people should realize that isn't the way it works. A Fighter, gaining 4 attacks, gets more benefit from a +3 sword than a Rogue does. A Cleric, having an AC of 20 with his full plate and shield, gets more benefit from a +3 set of armour to replace his than a warlock does getting a +3 set of studded leather, as the proportional impact of increasing AC increases the higher the AC value already is. Parity of magic items is not obtained by offering the same bonuses to every class.
Mostly true, but at least they get something. Warlocks have their +3 rods and even if it's not proportionately as good can still benefit from magical armour - my main objection to this is the fact that there's not even a hint of parity, 2/12 of the classes just get nothing in terms of passive boosts the other classes have access to.


That being said, the monks *do* have +3 AC items (in the HotDQ online supplement) and though they are not on the premade random tables, they exist in the game universe as a published material and can be freely inserted wherever and however you wish, whether on that table or just in that treasure pile directly. +3 monk weapons certainly exist, as well. True, there are no weapons that give +3 to unarmed attacks or to spells, but that does not inherently indicate a balance problem. The complaint should rather be, in my eyes, that they do not have anything which provides a comparable increase in performance. As I don't have a DMG, I cannot say with certainty whether or not that is indeed the case, but that would be a more valid cause for complaint. Whether that comes in the form of something that lets them negate resistance or add an ability modifier to damage for spells, or provides a recovery of 1 ki point on a successful hit, or whatever the case may be, it is certainly true that if class balance exists without magic items (a point debatable in its own right, but that is your premise so we'll stick with it) then in order for it to exist with magic items they must provide equal benefit. But equal benefit does not, at all, mean the same benefit, as that would inherently result in unequal impact from unequal ability to use that benefit.

It can be argued (I believe correctly) that +1 to +3 "generic" magic items inherently break the game, on a variety of levels. This would seem to be proof of that. I personally don't like them, and would rather play without them. If this is a strong sticking point to you, I would suggest you do the same.
I've put a lot of time in arguing exactly that on the forums, magic items shouldn't mess with AC or attack. As long as they do, the fact that a fighter can and a monk can't is stupid.

I have the DMG, and can confirm monks don't have anything that gives them parity. I'm a huge fan of equal benefit not being identical - if they played up the monk's martial utility aspect by not including the passive bonuses other martials get but gave them items that gave interesting bonuses or abilities, I'd love that. It is in fact exactly what I was hoping for. But I've read through the entire DMG and while there are some items that a monk can benefit from (belt of strength 29, for example) their item choices are basically the same as the fighters except without the weapons or armour.

I'm presently busy homebrewing myself an entirely different system of magical weapons and armour that have interesting bonuses but never bonus attacks or AC, I just didn't want to have to. The main reason I'm doing so is I'm running a game with a monk and a druid - I might have been a bit unhappy with the system beforehand, but I could live with it and it would have made DMing a bit simpler since I could just roll random items and let them look through the DMG at certain points, but the lack of anything for druids/monks and a few other issues means I'm better off inventing my own stuff and I'm returning my DMG to the shop today, since magic items are most of what I wanted from it. I did genuinely create this thread hoping there were a bunch of options in the DMG that I had missed, turns out I hadn't =/

Spoiler contains a few of the weapons I invented for the game, they all require attunement and they're intended to be powerful. Some moreso than others, a few just have generic +dice of damage.
Arcane Arcer, light crossbow.
Attacks with the Arcane Arcer deal an extra 1d6 lightning damage. Once per turn as an action the caster can imbue an arrow with an area spell or single target cantrip and fire it. When the arrow is fired, the spell’s area is centered on where the arrow lands even if the spell could normally be centered only on the caster. If a cantrip was used it hits the target if the arrow does and the target has disadvantage on the save if a save is required.

Claws of Light, short sword.
Claws of light deal an extra 2d6 radiant damage, doubling to 4d6 against fiends or undead. As a free action while wielding a claw of light you may have an identical weapon appear in your other hand. This second weapon disappears when it leaves your grip.

Corpsebow, shortbow.
A corpsebow deals an extra 1d6 necrotic damage on hit. In addition, any suitable target slain by the corpsebow shucks its flesh and rises again at the start of your next turn as a zombie or skeleton (your choice). The undead created this way can only be controlled while you are wielding the corpsebow - when the corpsebow leaves your hand, they will stand inert and do nothing except defend themselves when attacked. You may have total CR equal to your proficiency bonus worth of undead at any one time, and they are controlled in the same way as the animate dead spell.

Ghosthand, necklace.
The wearer's unarmed or natural attacks have an extra 5 feet of range and deal bonus damage equal to their wisdom modifier.

Heatstealer, bracers.
When equipped you have resistance to fire damage but vulnerability to cold damage and your unarmed or natural attacks deal an extra 2d6 cold damage. You can choose to instead deal an extra 1d6 cold damage and reduce the target's speed by 5 until the start of your next turn, increasing your speed by the same amount for the duration and stacking up to 5 times.

Inferno Brand, halberd.
Inferno brand deals an extra 3d6 fire damage on hit.

Jungle's Vengeance, blowgun.
You can make an attack with this weapon as a bonus action. Whenever you make an attack with this weapon, you can choose to add one of these extra affects to it (save DC is 8+proficiency+4):
Inflict a -5 penalty to an attribute of your choice(this does not stack) until the start of your next turn unless they pass a save of the same type of attribute (int save to prevent int loss for example)
Target takes 5d6 poison damage (con save for half)
Target's speed drops to half and they cannot use reactions (wis save for half)

Nightblade, dagger.
Three times per day you can apply a poison to a nightblade as a bonus action. Once per application of poison when you hit a creature you can give that opponent disadvantage on their save against the poison and have the poison deal twice as many dice worth of damage.

Parivir, greatsword.
Attacks with this weapon deal an extra 1d6 lightning damage, as do spells that deal damage you cast while wielding it (spells can only apply the damage once per target). Once per round you may make a melee attack against a target you have just affected with a spell as a free action provided the target is in range.

Piercing Cold, longbow
Attacks with this weapon deal an extra 1d6 cold damage, remain fully accurate to 300 feet and any attacks that hit continue past the target and hit any creature up to 10 feet behind it. Use the same attack roll for all targets.

Teacher, rapier.
Teacher allows you to learn three battlemaster maneuvers of your choice or replace previously learned maneuvers by practicing with it for eight hours, which you can only use while in possession of the weapon. In combat you gain one d6 superiority die at the start of each of your turns which disappears if it has not been used by the start of your next turn.

The Cannon, heavy crossbow.
The cannon does an extra 2d6 thunder damage on hit. You may choose to sacrifice one extra attack on your attack action - if you do, the next attack not only damages your target but every creature within 10 feet of the target. This can be done up to three times per short rest.

Shinestaff, quarterstaff.
While wielding the shinestaff you may deal an extra 3d6 damage of the same type done by the spell once per round when you deal damage with a spell.

Storm's Fury, javelin.
Storm's fury deals an extra 2d6 lightning damage and when thrown or dropped returns to the wielder's hand as soon as the owner wills it, allowing the wielder to make multiple ranged attacks if they desire.

Thunderclap armlets, bracers.
The wearer's unarmed or natural attacks deal a bonus 2d6 thunder damage. Instead of dealing this damage, you can give the target disadvantage against the next attempt to trip or shove them.

Wind Flail, flail.
The wielder of a wind flail can make two attacks when using the attack action. This does not stack with extra attack. In addition the wielder gains two extra reactions per round which can only be spent making attacks of opportunity.

Winter's Bite, war pick.
Winter's bite deals an extra 1d6 cold damage on hit and applies the frostbite effect, which lasts until the start of the wielders next turn and reduces speed by 10 feet. The wielder of Winter's Bite can make attacks of opportunity against targets afflicted with frostbite without using up their reaction and deals an extra 4d6 cold damage when they do so. The wielder can only make one attack of opportunity per target in this way per round.


There are any number of "monk usable magic weapons" - you just make them into a simple martial weapon. As for the other hands, so what? Their other hand is a magic weapon that scales with level, and hardly leaves them far behind. They get two attacks, so two shortsword (or whatever) swings and two punches, throwing extra damage and effects in with ki as necessary. It's hardly a huge nerf that they just get two weapon swings.

Presumably, what happened was they selected a totally different paradigm for handling magic items with the assumption that a DM is the best person to make a decision about what sort of junk they want to give the players. Give them items, throw some encounters at them, see where the party's at, adjust your CR expectations. Or don't give them items and run it by the book. The point is, they worked out how to design it, saw it as a superfluous and ridiculous set of rules, and tossed it out in favor of the expectation that DMs aren't mouth-breathing idiots. It more or less says, "don't mess with attunement, which will keep you from making super PCs, and otherwise just use common sense to keep people from loading up on necklaces."

It is incredibly and easily possible to be super generous to the fighter and let the monk keep up. Give them a blessing or a charm, give them an epic boon if you want. There are "other rewards," as the DMG says, that you can provide. Put together a robe that gives +3 AC, change one of the magical weapons into a fist item. Whatever works.
Really? The DMG is full of space fillers and they have a ton of different weapons, but putting actual rules or even goddamn suggestions for 2 of the 12 classes was superfluous? It is not easy to let the monk keep up, a DM has to actively invent items for the monk to have while the fighter can just be rolled randomly for on the magic item tables.

[Fwiffo86]

Spoiler contains a few of the weapons I invented for the game, they all require attunement and they're intended to be powerful. Some moreso than others, a few just have generic +dice of damage.


Do your monsters deal +1d to +5d additional dice of damage as well? It seems that you intend your player to average around 30 damage per hit. I just think your additional damages are all very high on these weapons, and not necessarily needed.

I understand not wanting magic weapons or armor with +s. But it seems to me that +1d of damage does not equal a +1. +1 dmg vs. +1-6(8) as an example.

[GiantOctopodes]

Do your monsters deal +1d to +5d additional dice of damage as well? It seems that you intend your player to average around 30 damage per hit. I just think your additional damages are all very high on these weapons, and not necessarily needed.

I understand not wanting magic weapons or armor with +s. But it seems to me that +1d of damage does not equal a +1. +1 dmg vs. +1-6(8) as an example.

Eslin is on record for running the kind of high powered campaign to where he expects his PCs to create a railgun with dimensional gates and obliterate the enemy castle from a continent away, rather than storm it. Trust me, these weapons are not going to even slightly unbalance his game. For everyone else yes, they are overpowered, in a system where +1d6 is roughly equal in impact on expected damage output to a +2 weapon, and +2d6 damage has more proportional impact than a +3 weapon (barring possibly those using sharpshooter or great weapon fighting), +3d6 damage on every hit is more powerful than any other magic item I've seen presented in the system. For a normal campaign, I'd limit the effects to +1d6, or +2d6 at the very most.

However, most of his PCs and enemies are probably running around with Hydra poison on everything anyway, so in order for the extra damage to be noticed when they're already dealing 1d10+5+7d6 (average 35 damage), 1d6 just isn't going to cut it.

[Fwiffo86]

Eslin is on record for running the kind of high powered campaign to where he expects his PCs to create a railgun with dimensional gates and obliterate the enemy castle from a continent away, rather than storm it. Trust me, these weapons are not going to even slightly unbalance his game. For everyone else yes, they are overpowered, in a system where +1d6 is roughly equal in impact on expected damage output to a +2 weapon, and +2d6 damage has more proportional impact than a +3 weapon (barring possibly those using sharpshooter or great weapon fighting), +3d6 damage on every hit is more powerful than any other magic item I've seen presented in the system. For a normal campaign, I'd limit the effects to +1d6, or +2d6 at the very most.

However, most of his PCs and enemies are probably running around with Hydra poison on everything anyway, so in order for the extra damage to be noticed when they're already dealing 1d10+5+7d6 (average 35 damage), 1d6 just isn't going to cut it.

Ouch! Well then, carry on Eslin! I am interested in hearing how this game turns out.

[archaeo]

Really? The DMG is full of space fillers and they have a ton of different weapons, but putting actual rules or even goddamn suggestions for 2 of the 12 classes was superfluous? It is not easy to let the monk keep up, a DM has to actively invent items for the monk to have while the fighter can just be rolled randomly for on the magic item tables.

I guess you should probably homebrew the world's tiniest violin for your bard?

As I said, not giving explicitly Wild Shape-approved magic items is a feature, not a bug; why would you want druids in beast form to be even more powerful? Monks, on the other hand, and as I said, can easily keep up just by not worrying overmuch on losing +x on two of their strikes and +y and +z to AC, probably by attuning to magic items that just make them harder to hit than they already are. Or you can easily use the alternative rewards to hand the monk bonuses as needed, if you find them falling behind. Not that you really will; with a little ki and boots of running, for example, you can do some very crazy drive-by kung fu.

I just fail to see the sturm und drang here, Eslin. You're no fool; you know how to make D&D 5e play exactly how you want it to play. And, frankly, the magic items provided in conjunction with the suggestions about creating magic items and using them in play should be enough for a new DM to get off the ground and running. The worst thing that can happen is that you unbalance the game for a session, have to apologize to your players, and fix things. It's not foolproof, but it doesn't get in the way with a bunch of rules you have to memorize to tell you things you already know. The worst-case scenario is that you end up having a few too-easy encounters. That's it. When the game fails in such an easy and recoverable fashion, I'm just not all that worried about it!

[Eslin]

Do your monsters deal +1d to +5d additional dice of damage as well? It seems that you intend your player to average around 30 damage per hit. I just think your additional damages are all very high on these weapons, and not necessarily needed.

I understand not wanting magic weapons or armor with +s. But it seems to me that +1d of damage does not equal a +1. +1 dmg vs. +1-6(8) as an example.
Attack increases unbalance things a lot more than damage does. There are plenty of ways to get bonus damage - it doesn't work on everyone, but poison for example can give you anywhere between 3d6 and 12d6 extra damage per attack and is incredibly easy to make when you have access to spells.

In 5e, 1d6 damage and +1 attack/+1 damage are roughly equivalent, except that the dice of damage are vulnerable to being reduced by resistances or immunities. Let's examine - you have a paladin. He's not very optimised, he just has a halberd and say a crappy poison like giant snake venom (available in unlimited quantities from level 2/3 if you have anyone nature inclined in your party). He's level 12 and his 3 attacks are doing an average of 20 (1d10 glaive + 5 strength +1d8 IDS +5 snake venom (3d6, but we'll assume it does less on average due to half damage on save and immunities)) - one of them will be 1d4, but we'll average it out thanks to his fighting style.

With +1d6 damage, he'll be doing 14.1 on average and with +1 enhancement he'll be doing 13.65, a little below parity assuming the best possible case. Once smites, other damage sources (hunter's mark, aura of hate, crusader's mantle etc) start coming in and the chance your extra elemental damage on hit is factored in +1 enhancement overshadows +d6 elemental damage. It's not just paladins, by the way, that was just an example - a fighter has lower bonuses on his attacks but more of them, and naturally synergises with feats like sharpshooter and great weapon master which get boosted to stupid degrees by +attack.

1d of damage is actually less overall useful than +1.


Eslin is on record for running the kind of high powered campaign to where he expects his PCs to create a railgun with dimensional gates and obliterate the enemy castle from a continent away, rather than storm it. Trust me, these weapons are not going to even slightly unbalance his game. For everyone else yes, they are overpowered, in a system where +1d6 is roughly equal in impact on expected damage output to a +2 weapon, and +2d6 damage has more proportional impact than a +3 weapon (barring possibly those using sharpshooter or great weapon fighting), +3d6 damage on every hit is more powerful than any other magic item I've seen presented in the system. For a normal campaign, I'd limit the effects to +1d6, or +2d6 at the very most.

However, most of his PCs and enemies are probably running around with Hydra poison on everything anyway, so in order for the extra damage to be noticed when they're already dealing 1d10+5+7d6 (average 35 damage), 1d6 just isn't going to cut it.
1d6 is about equal to a +1 weapon, a little better earlier and a little worse later, better the lower your opponent's AC and worse the higher your opponent's AC. This was me setting up dice for normal games - my campaigns aren't any higher powered at the baseline, I give people tools and expect them to use them well.


I guess you should probably homebrew the world's tiniest violin for your bard?

As I said, not giving explicitly Wild Shape-approved magic items is a feature, not a bug; why would you want druids in beast form to be even more powerful? Monks, on the other hand, and as I said, can easily keep up just by not worrying overmuch on losing +x on two of their strikes and +y and +z to AC, probably by attuning to magic items that just make them harder to hit than they already are. Or you can easily use the alternative rewards to hand the monk bonuses as needed, if you find them falling behind. Not that you really will; with a little ki and boots of running, for example, you can do some very crazy drive-by kung fu.

I just fail to see the sturm und drang here, Eslin. You're no fool; you know how to make D&D 5e play exactly how you want it to play. And, frankly, the magic items provided in conjunction with the suggestions about creating magic items and using them in play should be enough for a new DM to get off the ground and running. The worst thing that can happen is that you unbalance the game for a session, have to apologize to your players, and fix things. It's not foolproof, but it doesn't get in the way with a bunch of rules you have to memorize to tell you things you already know. The worst-case scenario is that you end up having a few too-easy encounters. That's it. When the game fails in such an easy and recoverable fashion, I'm just not all that worried about it!
Yes, I do want druids more powerful in beast form. Wild shape is too good early on and falls off late (until 20, but that's a capstone issue - one that needs fixing anyway, since land druids get nothing from it), a direct result of being balanced without magic items in mind. Monk wise, if such magic items existed I'd be happy for that to be a thing, but they don't. There are few items that synergise with monks better than other martials.

And it's those new players and DMs who I'm mostly concerned for, I have enough experience that I can just throw my hands in the air, take my DMG back to the shop for being useless and invent stuff of my own. Newer DMs who expect the game to do the balance for them because that's how it's supposed to goddamn work and use what's in the DMG will have monks rapidly fall behind. It's stupid, and they never included even a ****ing sidebar on the issue.

And how are you going to fix things if you unbalance them without retroactively changing the game world?

[Envyus]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen has the Insignia of Claws which boosts natural attacks and unarmed strikes. It's also considered to be Uncommon.

[Giant2005]

How common are the issues raised in this thread in the average game?
I mean, how many of you would give a party that consisted entirely of Monks a Dragon Slayer Sword (If that was rolled in random loot) over Dragon Slayer Fistwraps?

[archaeo]

Yes, I do want druids more powerful in beast form. Wild shape is too good early on and falls off late (until 20, but that's a capstone issue - one that needs fixing anyway, since land druids get nothing from it), a direct result of being balanced without magic items in mind.

Wait, what? If it falls off late, who cares? It's a druid! Tell them to maybe consider using some of their spells instead of meeting everything with their bear face on. I have a real hard time having pity for the poor unfortunate druid, frankly, and I sincerely doubt they fall so far behind they'd be complaining.


Monk wise, if such magic items existed I'd be happy for that to be a thing, but they don't. There are few items that synergise with monks better than other martials.

I mean, how many times does it have to be said that monks can use any simple martial magic weapon. They can use so many different, awesome items that synergize with what they're good at instead of just stacking up some AC? Boots, necklaces, rings, the whole kit and kaboodle, and they're all rad and grand.


And it's those new players and DMs who I'm mostly concerned for, I have enough experience that I can just throw my hands in the air, take my DMG back to the shop for being useless and invent stuff of my own. Newer DMs who expect the game to do the balance for them because that's how it's supposed to goddamn work and use what's in the DMG will have monks rapidly fall behind. It's stupid, and they never included even a ****ing sidebar on the issue.

Please. I don't consider myself very experienced or very smart, but I can tell how balancing magic items works and how to maintain what you want in the game. It just isn't really that complicated. And, if you screw up, so what? All you can do with magic items is accidentally make the game too easy for a bit. My apologies if I don't find this all that "stupid." Monks won't "rapidly fall behind," especially if you're not expecting that everybody else is running around with +3 magic item bonuses in every spot. And if they do, can't you just, you know, give the monk a really obvious and easy-to-homebrew fist weapon?

And all that assumes this is somehow the final word on magic items, as if none of the Unearthed Arcana articles will ever come back to cover them.


And how are you going to fix things if you unbalance them without retroactively changing the game world?

What? What does that even mean? I say, "oh, jeez guys, these items made you way too powerful" after the game, and they're like, "hah, yeah, we were killing those orcs something good." And then I go home and either run a couple test encounters to figure out where I should be aiming my XP budgets, or design an NPC encounter that separates them from their items, or any number of totally valid ways to rebalance the game without "retroactively changing the game world," which, if I'm honest, is not a massive sin worthy of opprobrium.

The opposite direction, where you design encounters that are way too hard, is as simple as saying, "uh, I didn't really mean to kill you guys, what do you want to do." And then if they're enjoying the game, we have a do-over; if they're not, we quit and do another campaign or watch a movie or something.

I mean, this is not rocket science. Be polite, be honest, and try to make the players have a good time. EZ PZ.

[Eslin]

How common are the issues raised in this thread in the average game?
I mean, how many of you would give a party that consisted entirely of Monks a Dragon Slayer Sword (If that was rolled in random loot) over Dragon Slayer Fistwraps?
How many DMs would? Lots. The book doesn't even mention the idea of such fistwraps existing, let alone include a single example. There will be many games in which the DSFs do not exist.


Wait, what? If it falls off late, who cares? It's a druid! Tell them to maybe consider using some of their spells instead of meeting everything with their bear face on. I have a real hard time having pity for the poor unfortunate druid, frankly, and I sincerely doubt they fall so far behind they'd be complaining.
I care about it because it A) doesn't make any sense that there would be an entire class of casters that specialise in turning into animals and that they wouldn't have made some magic items that work well to do so and b) because no seriously why are there no unarmed/unarmoured items and C) because if I'm going to retune how good wildshape is at 2 I'm going to want to address the reason it starts falling off later, too.


I mean, how many times does it have to be said that monks can use any simple martial magic weapon. They can use so many different, awesome items that synergize with what they're good at instead of just stacking up some AC? Boots, necklaces, rings, the whole kit and kaboodle, and they're all rad and grand.
And when they do so, they still get no bonuses on their fists. Which has been said many times. And there are plenty of items a fighter can synergise with as well, but the fighter can also get access to a huge pile of passive AC/attack boosters and +2d6 fire damage and such. Seriously, this is like elves telling orcs 'what do you want? you can already use the same toilets and magical elk buses as we can' and the orcs responding with 'yeah, but we still can't vote'. Once more, a monk with a quarterstaff still won't get that bonus on half his attacks and that ruins any unarmed monk theme a player might want, and 'unarmed monk' is not an uncommon theme. We've had this sorted for editions, how did they screw this up?


Please. I don't consider myself very experienced or very smart, but I can tell how balancing magic items works and how to maintain what you want in the game. It just isn't really that complicated. And, if you screw up, so what? All you can do with magic items is accidentally make the game too easy for a bit. My apologies if I don't find this all that "stupid." Monks won't "rapidly fall behind," especially if you're not expecting that everybody else is running around with +3 magic item bonuses in every spot. And if they do, can't you just, you know, give the monk a really obvious and easy-to-homebrew fist weapon?

And all that assumes this is somehow the final word on magic items, as if none of the Unearthed Arcana articles will ever come back to cover them.
What final word? This is core and 2 of the 12 classes have no items for their primary style of combat, in ways the other classes do - I took my DMG back to the shop earlier today. If UA comes out and it has good stuff I'll buy it, for now I have to invent my own stuff for unarmed combat.
And yes, I can do that, but please keep in mind it isn't obvious. If it was obvious there would be something in the DMG about it, but there isn't. There are plenty of DMs who will run things from the book and end up with nothing for monks/druids and we established a long time ago that 'oh you can just homebrew a fix' does not mean there is no problem.


What? What does that even mean? I say, "oh, jeez guys, these items made you way too powerful" after the game, and they're like, "hah, yeah, we were killing those orcs something good." And then I go home and either run a couple test encounters to figure out where I should be aiming my XP budgets, or design an NPC encounter that separates them from their items, or any number of totally valid ways to rebalance the game without "retroactively changing the game world," which, if I'm honest, is not a massive sin worthy of opprobrium.

The opposite direction, where you design encounters that are way too hard, is as simple as saying, "uh, I didn't really mean to kill you guys, what do you want to do." And then if they're enjoying the game, we have a do-over; if they're not, we quit and do another campaign or watch a movie or something.

I mean, this is not rocket science. Be polite, be honest, and try to make the players have a good time. EZ PZ.
Uh, yes. Both of those things are bad ideas, if the players get killed then their characters are dead and it's time to play a different campaign unless they want to come in in a different part of the current one (get killed by dragons, want to play dragons for the next game. It's a pity 5e doesn't contain those kinds of options, but I guess we already have 3.5 for that).

If the players don't treat death as deadly (for instance if they know it won't be or won't happen) things will lose all tension.

[SharkForce]

call me lazy, but my solution for monks at least would be to allow their extra attacks to all be made with the weapon, but any extra attacks that currently need to be made with unarmed strikes simply deal their unarmed damage.

honestly, i don't know why they didn't just do that in the first place. additionally, there are at least some options for armour (no shield, but the class was designed with no shield proficiency so i'm considering that to be perfectly acceptable).

which basically leaves druids. armour is easy enough... have it change form to barding appropriate to whatever form the wearer assumes (and it can work with polymorph, shapechange, etc).

for attacks, apparently there's an item in one of the adventures, and it's simple enough to make something similar for your own games.

but of course, this is all house rules. it does seem odd that they wouldn't at least have some sort of sidebar for it.

[newguymatt]

It seems to me that the DMG provides ample guidance on creating magic items, and under the Wild Shape heading, the following appears: "Worn equipment functions as normal" (hint: use staples).

So why don't specific items appear in the core material for unarmed boosting or druid shapechanging? Because they don't need to. Anyone who wants them can use the rules provided to design them at home. Creating "wraps of extra snappy punches" or "armor of not really armor so monks can have the best of all worlds +4" doesn't seem so tricky.

Anyways, the monk traditionally eschews armor and weapons, and in exchange receives some pretty nice compensation (save or die attacks, hands like magical halberds, immunity to Alzheimer's, and so on). The Druid gets to turn into a spell-casting giraffe if it wants to. Does a spell-casting giraffe need something more to make it totally awesome? No. No it does not.

If the concern is that armor and weapons eventually allow a player who chooses a class that benefits from weapons and armor all of the time to eclipse a player who can use weapons and armor most of the time but not for some class specific special situations, then okay, I agree with you that the game is broken.

Wait. No I don't. Magic items in any normal game should never create power creep the way you describe, unless a DM purposely allows it and favors one character over another. I did an experiment just to make sure my hunch was correct (you can try it at home too, if you would like). I let my character, mega-fighter supreme, roll on the level appropriate treasure horde table for each level from 1-20, but since she is so cool, I let her keep every item instead of sharing with the rest of her party. Here is what she got (courtesy of random.org):

Off of table A (2): A potion of healing and a potion of climbing

Off table B (7): 2 potions of water breathing (improbable), 2 helms of comprehending languages (really?), a lantern of revealing, a 2nd level spell scroll, and a potion of fire breathing.

Off table C (4): 2 potions of superior healing, Quall's feather token, sending stones

Off table D (6): 2 potions of supreme healing, Nolzur's pigments (rad), a potion of vitality, horseshoes of a zephyr, and a potion of longevity.

Off table E (8): 3 Potions of supreme healing, an arrow of slaying, 3 8th level scrolls, 1 9th level scroll.

Off table F (3): Hat of disguise, Weapon of Warning (we'll say it is a greatsword), Ring of Mind Shielding

Off table G (2): Bracers of Defense (Muahahahaha), Armor +1 Leather

Off table I (4): Rod of Resurrection, Ring of Invisibility, Ring of Earth Elemental Command, and Armor +1 Half Plate.


Does this list favor the fighter, or would it be better for the Monk?
Hmmm...

[Eslin]

It seems to me that the DMG provides ample guidance on creating magic items, and under the Wild Shape heading, the following appears: "Worn equipment functions as normal" (hint: use staples).

So why don't specific items appear in the core material for unarmed boosting or druid shapechanging? Because they don't need to. Anyone who wants them can use the rules provided to design them at home. Creating "wraps of extra snappy punches" or "armor of not really armor so monks can have the best of all worlds +4" doesn't seem so tricky.

Anyways, the monk traditionally eschews armor and weapons, and in exchange receives some pretty nice compensation (save or die attacks, hands like magical halberds, immunity to Alzheimer's, and so on). The Druid gets to turn into a spell-casting giraffe if it wants to. Does a spell-casting giraffe need something more to make it totally awesome? No. No it does not.

If the concern is that armor and weapons eventually allow a player who chooses a class that benefits from weapons and armor all of the time to eclipse a player who can use weapons and armor most of the time but not for some class specific special situations, then okay, I agree with you that the game is broken.

Wait. No I don't. Magic items in any normal game should never create power creep the way you describe, unless a DM purposely allows it and favors one character over another. I did an experiment just to make sure my hunch was correct (you can try it at home too, if you would like). I let my character, mega-fighter supreme, roll on the level appropriate treasure horde table for each level from 1-20, but since she is so cool, I let her keep every item instead of sharing with the rest of her party. Here is what she got (courtesy of random.org):

Fun fact: that you can create your own is not a good reason not not include any, or even suggest to new DMs that they should exist. What, that tenth magic sword was more important than having any items that boost unarmed attacks?

[Callin]

As per the trend of 5th and leaving stuff in the hands of the DM page 284 in the DMG. Creating a Magic Item gives the suggestion of Modifying an Item. Yes it sucks that they were not put in the tables but the rules for them are there you just have to search em out.

[Demonic Spoon]

Fun fact: that you can create your own is not a good reason not not include any, or even suggest to new DMs that they should exist. What, that tenth magic sword was more important than having any items that boost unarmed attacks?


Monks get two attacks which is the same as the other martial classes - only the fighter benefits disproportionately from magic weapons due to 3+ attacks.

Magic fistwraps or something of the like would be a slight improvement over weapons for monks, but nigh-useless for any class that isn't a monk. They probably didn't want to put in a magic item that wouldn't be useful to many parties. Magic swords are always going to be useful.

[Eslin]

As per the trend of 5th and leaving stuff in the hands of the DM page 284 in the DMG. Creating a Magic Item gives the suggestion of Modifying an Item. Yes it sucks that they were not put in the tables but the rules for them are there you just have to search em out.

I am aware of that. This isn't such a problem in my game - I've had to replace the magic weapons and such entirely with homebrew since they messed with bounded accuracy, that they neglected to put any magic items in for the fighting styles of two entire classing is just crap icing on the turd cake.

I just have no idea why they did that - they had all that space, and they couldn't include anything?


Monks get two attacks which is the same as the other martial classes - only the fighter benefits disproportionately from magic weapons due to 3+ attacks.

Magic fistwraps or something of the like would be a slight improvement over weapons for monks, but nigh-useless for any class that isn't a monk. They probably didn't want to put in a magic item that wouldn't be useful to many parties. Magic swords are always going to be useful.
Why magic fistwraps? Make it an amulet of natural attacks, it'll boost druids, monks and anyone who transforms like wizards and such. And by the way, seriously? There was so many essential items like the Apparatus of Kwalish and Pipes of the Sewers that they couldn't include at least a sidebar on magic items for unarmed/unarmoured characters.

[newguymatt]

Fun fact: that you can create your own is not a good reason not not include any, or even suggest to new DMs that they should exist. What, that tenth magic sword was more important than having any items that boost unarmed attacks?

I don't mean to be argumentative, but... Okay. I guess I do mean to be argumentative. I totally disagree with your first point. No matter how large the guide, our imaginations will always trump RAW. There is no way they could represent everything in the DMG, or even anticipate all things. I have to admit that there are quite a few class specific items, but there isn't necessarily one for every class, and I don't think there needs to be. Unarmed strikes? Why not wild magic amplifiers, GOO telepathy range extenders, and barbarian rage multipliers? I want a bard item that gives bonuses to my inspiration, a Ranger item that somehow incorporates my favored enemy, and a rogue item that turns backstabs into frontstabs. Are they in the DMG? No (okay, admittedly, i didn't double-check this. Maybe all these items exist - except for the frontstabs. I would have noticed that one). Were they at least conscientious enough of their own limitations (space, time, imagination) to provide do-it-yourself rules? Yes.

Your second point, I am far more sympathetic with. I agree that among the vast plethora of swords there could be a few more options. But a weapon that makes unarmed attacks more potent seems way down on the list. f I were to change sides and argue that the book is lacking in diversity, I would start at the fact that outside of swords, there are very few unique weapons. Maybe one or two for each type (if any) and most of these are "old favorites" so-to-speak. But I don't fault the guide for that. This is "sword and sorcery" after all. I take it more to be, "here are some ideas. Now go run with it." I think you are selling a lot of players short when you suggest that since they aren't mentioned anywhere, no one is coming up with them. I started playing when I was 10 and even then, the first thing I would have both thought of and then vocalized to my DM for a monk character is a ring that made my unarmed strikes cause eyeball explosions or gloves covered with bee stingers. These items aren't so ground-breakingly creative that without a DMG telling people so, no one would think of them. As someone who pretends to box at the local gym, I can tell you that handwraps are a pretty mundane idea.

If your complaint is that this guide won't make unimaginative, boring roleplayers into pen-and-paper dynamos, I suppose that is something. I'm not losing sleep over it

[newguymatt]

Eslin. I just reread my post. I don't know where all this is coming from. Sorry for being a jerk. I've spent a week irritated that there isn't enough creativity in the Warlock pacts and not enough clarification on how they affect the characters in their daily lives. I guess we each have our pet peeves. (Plus, clearly, I like hearing myself type).

[Malifice]

Does a spell-casting giraffe need something more to make it totally awesome? No. No it does not.

Thank you for this quote. I laughed quite loudly.

[Ashrym]

Magic items appear to be intentional when it comes to monks.


As mentioned, most characters with extra attack get 2 attacks and some get an occasional bonus. Monks always get a bonus unarmed attack can turn it into 2 unarmed attacks. Their magic short swords do d10 damage, however, and that's some competition for other class use of magical weapons in itself when they are either giving up a shield and AC for a 2 handed weapon or giving up on the damage die of the weapon to keep the shield. The reason this looks intentional is because monks have certain ki abilities that can only be applied with unarmed attacks, however. Without boosting unarmed attacks, monks have the option of making their 2 regular attacks with weapons plus an unarmed attack in order to use, for example, quivering palm for it's save or die ability once, or they can make 3 unarmed attacks and increase the odds of hitting with an unarmed attack by a crap ton for less damage but more chance to land that ki ability. Simply giving unarmed attack bonuses similar to weapons removes that significant choice point from the monk because then they don't really have much reason for using weapons. The game is better off having a trade off between weapon use and unarmed use. It can still be done if magic items for unarmed strikes are weaker than magical weapons but it looks good leaving them out tbh; just leave the decision point for monks so that they have a choice.


Monks already have AC benefiting items beyond magical armor. Fighters with magical medium or heavy armor have no benefit for AC bonuses from DEX or WIS items, or tomes. They need to be a DEX build in light armor to gain any real benefit from DEX to AC, and none from WIS unless they splash monk and wear no armor. Monks typically have 2 sources of AC -- WIS and DEX. Fighters typically have 2 sources of AC -- Armor and Shield. Both can have magical items that benefit AC. Seems WAI to me.


I'd be quite happy with a belt of giant strength and a magical weapon doing 1d10 plus magic weapon attacks and 1d10 unarmed attack.

[newguymatt]

Monks already have AC benefiting items beyond magical armor. Fighters with magical medium or heavy armor have no benefit for AC bonuses from DEX or WIS items, or tomes. They need to be a DEX build in light armor to gain any real benefit from DEX to AC, and none from WIS unless they splash monk and wear no armor. Monks typically have 2 sources of AC -- WIS and DEX. Fighters typically have 2 sources of AC -- Armor and Shield. Both can have magical items that benefit AC. Seems WAI to me..

I agree with you regarding the unarmed, but I'm not convinced on the armor. I've been looking at it and at least where armor is concerned, I think the OP has a good point. The extra you get from WIS does not seem to balance out. I'm not complaining about this, just pointing out that is is an area where Monks do have a legitimate disadvantage, by design.

[Ashrym]

I agree with you regarding the unarmed, but I'm not convinced on the armor. I've been looking at it and at least where armor is concerned, I think the OP has a good point. The extra you get from WIS does not seem to balance out. I'm not complaining about this, just pointing out that is is an area where Monks do have a legitimate disadvantage, by design.

It's WIS and DEX, however. Both increase AC. Neither increases AC for a typical fighter because they usually wear heavy armor as the better option regardless of DEX. I wouldn't compare monks to fighters, however. I would consider it by design because they calculate armor differently so any bonuses differently (DEX or WIS improvement) makes sense; otherwise leads to stacking treadmills again, which WotC is trying to avoid with the bounded accuracy policy.

It looks like it's an overstated issue, especially when any DM who disagrees with it can just add a magic item that matches what the DM wants to see in the player's hand.

[Eslin]

As mentioned, most characters with extra attack get 2 attacks and some get an occasional bonus. Monks always get a bonus unarmed attack can turn it into 2 unarmed attacks. Their magic short swords do d10 damage, however, and that's some competition for other class use of magical weapons in itself when they are either giving up a shield and AC for a 2 handed weapon or giving up on the damage die of the weapon to keep the shield. The reason this looks intentional is because monks have certain ki abilities that can only be applied with unarmed attacks, however. Without boosting unarmed attacks, monks have the option of making their 2 regular attacks with weapons plus an unarmed attack in order to use, for example, quivering palm for it's save or die ability once, or they can make 3 unarmed attacks and increase the odds of hitting with an unarmed attack by a crap ton for less damage but more chance to land that ki ability. Simply giving unarmed attack bonuses similar to weapons removes that significant choice point from the monk because then they don't really have much reason for using weapons. The game is better off having a trade off between weapon use and unarmed use. It can still be done if magic items for unarmed strikes are weaker than magical weapons but it looks good leaving them out tbh; just leave the decision point for monks so that they have a choice.
That doesn't really work, since it screws over monks who just want to use unarmed combat (the reason a lot of people play monks) and does nothing for anyone else unarmed, like druids.


Monks already have AC benefiting items beyond magical armor. Fighters with magical medium or heavy armor have no benefit for AC bonuses from DEX or WIS items, or tomes. They need to be a DEX build in light armor to gain any real benefit from DEX to AC, and none from WIS unless they splash monk and wear no armor. Monks typically have 2 sources of AC -- WIS and DEX. Fighters typically have 2 sources of AC -- Armor and Shield. Both can have magical items that benefit AC. Seems WAI to me.
It really doesn't. Add plate and a shield together, you have 20 AC. It takes a monk 16 levels to get there by taking stat increases, and when those increases cap out you're at 20 AC, same as the fighter.

Comparing tomes and manuals to +1/2/3 shields, weapons and armours does not work as a balancing measure - you'll need 4 tomes to equal a fighter with a +2 armour and +2 shield, which is 4 very rare items as opposed to 2. It's just... completely skewy. Thinking about it, the tomes themselves are completely at odds with the rest of the design philosophy - they have no cap of 20 or 30 and they don't take up attunement slots.


It's WIS and DEX, however. Both increase AC. Neither increases AC for a typical fighter because they usually wear heavy armor as the better option regardless of DEX. I wouldn't compare monks to fighters, however. I would consider it by design because they calculate armor differently so any bonuses differently (DEX or WIS improvement) makes sense; otherwise leads to stacking treadmills again, which WotC is trying to avoid with the bounded accuracy policy.

It looks like it's an overstated issue, especially when any DM who disagrees with it can just add a magic item that matches what the DM wants to see in the player's hand.
No, they said they were trying to avoid it. Then they added things like +3 items, belts of 29 strength and items that permanently increase your stats past 20.

It's the same as when they said that you won't need to give your players magic items like you had to in 3.5 and 4e - just because they said it doesn't make it true.

[SharkForce]

No, they said they were trying to avoid it. Then they added things like +3 items, belts of 29 strength and items that permanently increase your stats past 20.

It's the same as when they said that you won't need to give your players magic items like you had to in 3.5 and 4e - just because they said it doesn't make it true.

heh. does anyone else remember when they promised 4e was going to be less magic-item dependant, then they went on to make it so that instead of only some classes needing +X items to hit, *every* class needed it, and the value of +X was essentially based on what level you were at the time?

they obviously don't consider their promises to be more important than the product.

and yeah, i'm not sold on them actually avoiding this one either. if they were, there would probably be no such thing as a +1 weapon or armour. there would be no spells that add a stacking bonus to anything. there would be no guidance or bless, no haste (+2 AC), no shield of faith, etc.

as it stands, for a game where you're not supposed to be able to stack bonuses, there's an uncomfortably large number of them in core alone. granted, keeping all of those active all of the time is out of the question, and even keeping all of those active some of the time is going to call for some careful party planning, but it's certainly within reach.

for a short period of time, you can go from someone in the party having 20 AC (which is probably roughly where the bounded accuracy is supposed to be at, considering only level 20 barbarians have a way to exceed this without magic, and that takes a lot of stat increases to pull it) to someone having +3 from Shield of Faith, +2 from haste, +3 from magic armour, and +3 from magic shield, or 31 total (unlikely, yes... but still possible within the system).

that's a pretty dramatic possible increase. heck, even the +5 from two spells is pretty big.

and again, this is with just what's in the core. they're going to keep releasing more books. if the current trends continue, with one or two stacking bonuses per main book possible, it's not looking good for bounded accuracy to remain as the default.

and heck, i'm not even sure that i haven't missed anything...

[Rilak]

for a short period of time, you can go from someone in the party having 20 AC (which is probably roughly where the bounded accuracy is supposed to be at, considering only level 20 barbarians have a way to exceed this without magic, and that takes a lot of stat increases to pull it) to someone having +3 from Shield of Faith, +2 from haste, +3 from magic armour, and +3 from magic shield, or 31 total (unlikely, yes... but still possible within the system).

that's a pretty dramatic possible increase. heck, even the +5 from two spells is pretty big.

Shield of Faith is only +2. And no DM would just keep hitting the guy with the AC buffs. The spell casters gave up casting Banishment or Hold Person to cast those spells, so go poke them. If you can hit the guy who cast Haste, you can cause the tank to lose a turn.

But yes, +X magic shield should have required attunement. Probably +2/3 magic armour and weapon, too.

But yes, as it is you can stack armor+shield+3 attunement slots for cloak/ring of protection, etc. And one concentration slot per caster in the party.

[silveralen]

Staff of striking looks a powerful weapon monk benefits more from than most. Some other staffs also exist a monk can make good with. Unless you allow your fighters to carry a rod in the same hand as a shield or wear a robe over there armor, he has some interesting options there most fighters can't access. Bracers of defense as well obviously.

Also, are we so sure that "fist wraps + x" do not exist? Looking at the weapon table, I see unarmed strike listed. Under the section on magic weapons it states that, if the weapon doesn't specify (such as te generic +1/2/3) you can determine randomly or pick any of the existing weapons. Which include unarmed strike. Now obviously it'd be a bit silly to give someone a magic fist to graft onto their arm, but it doesn't strain things badly to say such an item should be boosting unarmed strike damage, be it as fist wraps, boots, or gloves.

Unarmed strike is a listed weapon, many magic items say "any", and it is never called out as not being an option in any part of the DMG I can find. Is there any proof that isn't valid or intended?

[Rilak]

Staff of striking looks a powerful weapon monk benefits more from than most. Some other staffs also exist a monk can make good with. Unless you allow your fighters to carry a rod in the same hand as a shield or wear a robe over there armor, he has some interesting options there most fighters can't access. Bracers of defense as well obviously.

A +3 quarterstaff is better (no attunement). Fighters can wear a rod as an improvised weapon as well (similar to a Mace, so 1d6). Fighters also benefit more from the staves than monks (more likely to be polearm masters; monks get one unarmed attack without the feat).

Bracers of defense require attunement and add +2 AC. A +3 shield does not require attunement and adds +5 AC.
With 20 DEX/WIS and a bracers of defense, a Monk hits 22 AC.
With 8 DEX, 8 STR, a Dwarven cleric gets 26 AC using zero attunement slots and +3 armour/shield.

The magic items are very unfair to monks.

[archaeo]

Can someone explain why stacking up AC for monks is really so vital? They were specifically designed to avoid the need for armor, mostly; they have Unarmored Defense, Deflect Missiles, Evasion, Stillness of Mind, Purity of Body, and Diamond Soul (!!), and all of that is just the free stuff that doesn't cost Ki. They're more or less specifically designed to avoid and mitigate damage with a variety of non-AC defenses. Letting them also stack up huge AC bonuses seems unnecessary.

Furthermore, how far does this go? Do the rules let you wear, say, a magic robe while retaining Unarmored Defense? I would say yes, personally.


Unarmed strike is a listed weapon, many magic items say "any", and it is never called out as not being an option in any part of the DMG I can find. Is there any proof that isn't valid or intended?

Of course not. But because the DMG doesn't call it out specifically, it's a major missing piece in this edition, obviously.

[silveralen]

A +3 quarterstaff is better (no attunement). Fighters can wear a rod as an improvised weapon as well (similar to a Mace, so 1d6). Fighters also benefit more from the staves than monks (more likely to be polearm masters; monks get one unarmed attack without the feat).

Bracers of defense require attunement and add +2 AC. A +3 shield does not require attunement and adds +5 AC.
With 20 DEX/WIS and a bracers of defense, a Monk hits 22 AC.
With 8 DEX, 8 STR, a Dwarven cleric gets 26 AC using zero attunement slots and +3 armour/shield.

The magic items are very unfair to monks.

Why does attunement matter? It's extremely unlikely for so many items to be given out as to prevent attunement to a weapon.

Sure a fighter can use a rod, if he doesn't want a shield, doesn't want s too hand weapon, or uses a feat to gain prof with improvised weapons and sacrifices wielding a magic weapon. Considering we seem to be assuming everyone gets a +3 whatever, those are all kinda big deals.

Well, yes. Because the dwarf has multiple very magic items made specifically to boost defense, uses a primarily defensive fighting style of weapon+shield, and has heavy armor prof. He is optimized for defense in every way. If he tried to use a two handed weapon to gain parity in damage with a monk (he'd still fail, but it'd be closer), his AC drops to 21 and the monk still out damages him by a pretty big margin. Not really sure how that's a balance issue. The guy in heavy armor with lots of magic whose fighting style resembles a turtle has a high AC?

Even by default, monk has to max two stats to draw even with default AC for that class. Monks aren't great at max AC, they are great at keeping a high AC without sacrificing offense. Any class with heavy armor can get max monk AC earlier if they want, and barbarian actually has the max natural AC. Monk simply can balance offense and defense better with a little investment, same case with magic items, he has to invest some attunement. Or just use empty body (if you managed to get two +3 items before nearing the level cap the campaign is doomed anyways).

Though honestly, I can't imagine any DM is actually stupid enough to run around giving +6 AC worth of magic items that don't require attunement to every character. This is one of those hypothetical "issues" that never actually come up.


Of course not. But because the DMG doesn't call it out specifically, it's a major missing piece in this edition, obviously.

Oh man, it's like someone angry they didn't specifically mention padded armor could be magical, because it's just cloth so people might assume it doesn't count despite it being on the armor table.

[Ghost Nappa]

I believe the highest AC a Monk can get is 10 (Base) + 7 (DEX w/ cap raised to 24) + 7 (WIS w/ cap raised to 24) + 3 (Legendary Unarmored Bracers from that one supplement). That is 27 and requires quite a bit of leg-work, lucky rolling and patience.

I do agree with Eslin that it is disappointing that there are no items deliberately made for Monk class (there are other weapons and items that are class-specific) but I'm not sure personally whether or not these should go into defenses, offenses, or utility.

I would have liked guide-lines for designing a weapon for a specific class.

[SharkForce]

and here we go back to making it the DM's responsibility to fix the game.

if it's something no DM would ever do, why is it possible? if it's such an obviously stupid thing to allow, then why is it allowed in the first place?

if it's reasonable to allow the *option* for a DM to give out +3 shields and +3 armour that a fighter or paladin or even a cleric (or anyone else with appropriate feats) can use, why isn't it *equally* reasonable to allow similar options for a monk or wild shaped druid?

if everyone else gets interesting items with various features, why is it unreasonable to ask for something for monks and druids, for whom using all of the regular melee weapons in the games is not always an option?

[Ashrym]

and here we go back to making it the DM's responsibility to fix the game.

Or we've gone back to empowering the DM's to making it the game they want. Tomato / tomato.


if it's reasonable to allow the *option* for a DM to give out +3 shields and +3 armour that a fighter or paladin or even a cleric (or anyone else with appropriate feats) can use, why isn't it *equally* reasonable to allow similar options for a monk or wild shaped druid?

Better class balance. Druids don't exactly need better AC to go with their temp hp pools, and monks have enough class abilities that they don't need the same equipment options as another class just because that class uses more equipment.

It's just a case of wanting more for the sake of wanting more because one class has a toy another class doesn't.

Just add what you want in your game and it's a done deal. Adding more to someone else's game in the rule books does nothing but add items to ignore an take up extra page space from that different perspective. It's just not possible to please everyone all the time.

[newguymatt]

and here we go back to making it the DM's responsibility to fix the game.

The game in no way needs fixing. The DM's responsibility is to use the rules to guide the game, and where a rule doesn't exist, use their discretion (along with the guidance and tools available in many cases) to change what they would like (as encouraged by the creators). Either that, or play RAW as written, and accept it.

If they spent 100s of years and 1000s of pages producing a perfect DMG or PHB, first everyone would complain it was taking too long and then everyone would immediately identify 50+ things that they needed added, fixed, changed, or removed.

Monks have chosen a life of limited possessions. If they dreamed of powerful magic items, why did they stay in the monastery? And if a monastery was their only choice, why didn't they consult a wizard and commission an item that fit their needs? And if the world doesn't have any wizards who can do such things, where did all these +3 fighter weapons come from?

A level 20 monk wearing a towel could easily stand toe to toe with a fully equipped fighter of the same level. The monk could spend the first 20 turns under improved invisibility and full damage resistance (except force damage) and still make 4 save-or-die attacks. In the end, they could just run away from that pinata in plate without breaking a sweat if things didn't turn out well. And if they just ran down the hall and waited around the corner, another initiative roll gives them either 10 more invisible damage resistance turns or another save or die attack.

So I could argue that monks are unfair. I could argue the same with Druids, who get unlimited shape-change. I could also argue that there is statistically almost no way for a fighter to end up with a +3 weapon (of the right type), +3 shield, and +3 armor (of the right type) unless they are 20+ given the loot tables. And if the DM is handing out those weapons without consulting the tables, then they are using their own discretion to do so. So they can use their own discretion to gear up monks as well - in any way they choose.

[silveralen]

and here we go back to making it the DM's responsibility to fix the game.

if it's something no DM would ever do, why is it possible? if it's such an obviously stupid thing to allow, then why is it allowed in the first place?

if it's reasonable to allow the *option* for a DM to give out +3 shields and +3 armour that a fighter or paladin or even a cleric (or anyone else with appropriate feats) can use, why isn't it *equally* reasonable to allow similar options for a monk or wild shaped druid?

if everyone else gets interesting items with various features, why is it unreasonable to ask for something for monks and druids, for whom using all of the regular melee weapons in the games is not always an option?

Oh sure, a DM can do it. Obviously it won't be balanced though. That's what non required magic items means, the moment you start handing out anything but the most basic ones you have to take into account the encounter building guidelines are going to be on the low side. So when you start handing out powerful magic items, you have to start adjusting things if you want balance. Magic items themselves are an optional rule.

As for why... different classes are built differently. Monk has a good balance of AC to power, he can match an offensively minded fighter's AC without struggling and even beat it eventually, but it takes a lot to match a defensive fighter. Magic items don't change that dynamic greatly. So long as he gets even a single magic item that boosts AC he can match and offensively minded fighter who gets a +3 suit of full plate, and if he has bracers of defense he'd beat the two handed fighter easily. He doesn't need to beat the fighter's AC to be better defensively either, prof in every saving throw, the ability to go invisible and gain damage resistance, and bonus action dodging all allow monk options when he needs them.

The balance is maintained, monk struggles to match a shield user in raw AC (but again, other factors) while he can match or beat a great weapon user with a minimal investment. Nothing changes really, he just has to invest an attunement slot instead of ability increases.

Druid is a full caster, his equipment options (magical or otherwise) are limited in beast form to maintain balance between classes. He can boost his spellcasting ability, like any other full caster, and he depends on his spells to close the gap between himself and a fighter, barbarian, or monk. This is the same with or without magic items, and by boosting his magical ability he boosts his combat ability.

Monk does have access. By RAW, any magic weapon that specifies any can have an unarmed attack variant for monk, and any monk weapon will typically gain an increased damage die when wielded by a monk.

[Gwendol]

The druid doesn't benefit much from magic armor due to armor not very useful in beast form (AC has to beat the beast AC to be worthwhile).
The monk, as noted before, can use a plethora of magic items to either boost offence or defence or whatever. I for one am glad we don't have a belt of the monk.

[Knaight]

Or we've gone back to empowering the DM's to making it the game they want. Tomato / tomato.

This and the GM having to fix the game are not even remotely the same thing. To use a GURPS example - the system is really broad, and empowers the GM to make the game they want, provided they like some of the core system assumptions (e.g. lots and lots of crunch, incredibly narrow skills, fairly lethal combat*). It's also not something that needs to be fixed in any real way to get to work.

*Really, I'm mostly using it as an example because it's the well known generic, not because it's particularly good, though there are things about it I like.

[Ashrym]

This and the GM having to fix the game are not even remotely the same thing. To use a GURPS example - the system is really broad, and empowers the GM to make the game they want, provided they like some of the core system assumptions (e.g. lots and lots of crunch, incredibly narrow skills, fairly lethal combat*). It's also not something that needs to be fixed in any real way to get to work.

*Really, I'm mostly using it as an example because it's the well known generic, not because it's particularly good, though there are things about it I like.

For it to be "fixing" requires the assumption it's broken and needs fixed, which is begging the question of whether it needs fixed in the first place. It's faulty reasoning because it's not demonstrated that the system is broken just because different classes use magic items differently for different effects. It is accepted that DM's can change things to suit their own campaign. The only difference is the subjective opinion of the individual speaking, which is why its tomato / tomahto. Both are exactly the same things: the DM changes the system to be what he wants because he likes the change or the DM changes the system to be what he wants because he doesn't like it without the change. The only difference is perspective.

[Knaight]

Both are exactly the same things: the DM changes the system to be what he wants because he likes the change or the DM changes the system to be what he wants because he doesn't like it without the change. The only difference is perspective.

One of them isn't changing the system, it's selectively using parts of a modular system. Whether or not a system needs fixing is an entirely different matter of whether something is a fix or a customization - it's possible to try and fix something that actually isn't broken, and that would still be an attempted fix, as it is there to correct for a (perceived) failing in a system. Just using the parts of a system relevant to a game is a different matter entirely.

[Ashrym]

One of them isn't changing the system, it's selectively using parts of a modular system. Whether or not a system needs fixing is an entirely different matter of whether something is a fix or a customization - it's possible to try and fix something that actually isn't broken, and that would still be an attempted fix, as it is there to correct for a (perceived) failing in a system. Just using the parts of a system relevant to a game is a different matter entirely.

So in other words, still empowering a DM to use or change what he thinks is best for his game. Rewording it doesn't change the fact it's the same action done by the same person.

[silveralen]

This and the GM having to fix the game are not even remotely the same thing. To use a GURPS example - the system is really broad, and empowers the GM to make the game they want, provided they like some of the core system assumptions (e.g. lots and lots of crunch, incredibly narrow skills, fairly lethal combat*). It's also not something that needs to be fixed in any real way to get to work.

*Really, I'm mostly using it as an example because it's the well known generic, not because it's particularly good, though there are things about it I like.

Magic items are optional I might add, if you dislike what it adds you don't need to use it.

[Knaight]

Magic items are optional I might add, if you dislike what it adds you don't need to use it.
It's not about the specific example for the most part, it's about whether a fix and "empowering a DM to use or change what [they] think is best for [their] game" are the same thing.


So in other words, still empowering a DM to use or change what he thinks is best for his game. Rewording it doesn't change the fact it's the same action done by the same person.

It's only the same action at a very superficial level, and the reasons are different. One of them is using a thing, but having to change it first because it does something undesirable. One of them is using a thing because it fits the game, or not using a thing because it fits the game.

As for empowering a GM to use or change, actual modular design does that. 5e took some major steps in that direction - designing without assumed magic items and then designing magic items so that they would preserve existing balance is an obvious move there. It lets the GM tweak magic item prevalence (using or changing what is best for their game), without having to go back and make a bunch of changes to classes and spells to compensate (a fix). The lack of unarmed boosting magic items is arguably something that undercuts that, not something that creates options. It's also arguably not an issue, as there are so many non weapon magic items in the first place and the classes affected are the ones that thematically don't warrant them. Either way, it's in fix territory, whether the fix is necessary or misguided.

This is just one example. The broader point is that two different concepts are being equated, and that gets in the way of understanding games.

[Gwendol]

I still don't think there is such a big magic item problem it needs fixing. And this thread hasn't made it clearer, yet. So, what exactly is being discussed?
Exactly what item(s) is the monk missing?

[archaeo]

and here we go back to making it the DM's responsibility to fix the game.


Or we've gone back to empowering the DM's to making it the game they want.

This disagreement is ultimately at the foundation of pretty much every dispute and debate occurring on this board.

[Fwiffo86]

I still don't think there is such a big magic item problem it needs fixing. And this thread hasn't made it clearer, yet. So, what exactly is being discussed?
Exactly what item(s) is the monk missing?

[My opinion] The monk/druid is not missing items. There are adequate items for the Monk/Druid to make use of in the same fashion as a + weapon.

The thought is that if +s weapons are freely available, that the monk (and druid) need something that works with unarmed and natural (variation on unarmed) attacks to be competitive. Though being competitive with the fighter seems silly since both the monk and the druid serve different functions within the party dynamic.

Special Note
What archeo said.

[Gwendol]

My counterpoint to that is that monk unarmed strikes are magical past a given level, and the druid is a full caster so really should have plenty of options already.
Also monk special weapons are certainly enchantable.
As for AC, WIS boosting is likely better.

[SharkForce]

druids don't have options for magical natural attacks. considering that wild shape is pretty much supposed to be the focus of moon druids, that feels a bit weird, to say the least. if magic fang was in the game converted from 3.x, i doubt this would be nearly as big of an issue.

it's also not just an issue of dealing magic damage. that's nice, certainly, but magic weapons can in many cases be a huge deal. a paladin with a holy avenger should be very different from one without. a lack of options for unarmed or natural attack builds doesn't just mean you're not getting +X to hit and damage and penetrating nonmagical weapon immunity (although those are a big deal, especially the former in a bounded accuracy system where these weapons basically let you go past those boundaries), it also means that you're not going to be finding those items that change how your character plays.

in fact, considering eslin explicitly seems to dislike how +X items interact with bounded accuracy last i checked, i very much doubt he was looking for "+1 handwraps" in the first place.

[Fwiffo86]

Agreed. Though I'm AFB, I vaguely remember that Moon Druid's attacks are counted as magical at some point for the purposes of overcoming resistance. Again, AFB, so I could be way off about that.

[SharkForce]

Agreed. Though I'm AFB, I vaguely remember that Moon Druid's attacks are counted as magical at some point for the purposes of overcoming resistance. Again, AFB, so I could be way off about that.

hmmm... right you are, shows how often i play them :P

(level 6, if you're wondering).

though i suspect it's more about other things. i would imagine eslin would be more interested in, say, an amulet of the snake's fang which allows you to apply poison to it which is then transmitted through your natural attacks and unarmed strikes, rather than "the nondescript and unspecific object of getting +1 to your attack and damage rolls with unarmed strikes and natural weapons, and also of treating them as magical" :P

[Feldarove]

Now....I know this isn't the answer you are looking for, but...

I think part of the aesthetic of a monk is that they don't require "Items" to be badass

They can cast spells without casting spells, they can overcome creatures resistances to non-magical weapons with their fists!, and they can withstand attacks or avoid them with out use of any armor.

Perhaps this was part of the design process when making the monk and making magical items.

Your argument that there are tons of magical items that are good for everyone but the monk isn't the best.

If you read through the DMG magic items, a lot of items are just flavor props for each class. Its not like bracers of defense are for monks and everything else is for fighters.

All the capes/cloaks are universal, boots, glasses, ioun stones...all that stuff, good (or meh) for everyone.

[silveralen]

hmmm... right you are, shows how often i play them :P

(level 6, if you're wondering).

though i suspect it's more about other things. i would imagine eslin would be more interested in, say, an amulet of the snake's fang which allows you to apply poison to it which is then transmitted through your natural attacks and unarmed strikes, rather than "the nondescript and unspecific object of getting +1 to your attack and damage rolls with unarmed strikes and natural weapons, and also of treating them as magical" :P

Why not give the monk an item to summon snakes then? Such as staff of the python? Summons snake, shifts, snake bite enemies and the Druid claws them. Staff of swarming insects is similar in that regard.

[SharkForce]

Why not give the monk an item to summon snakes then? Such as staff of the python? Summons snake, shifts, snake bite enemies and the Druid claws them. Staff of swarming insects is similar in that regard.

at that point, why not just hire a peasant to follow you around and summon snakes on your behalf with the staff so that it doesn't use up your actions, since that item has absolutely nothing to do with hitting anyone with or without unarmed strikes or natural attacks?

in any event, i was just trying to point out that the real loss is more the loss of unique and interesting abilities. when was the last time you thought "wow, cool, a long sword +1!"? i'm gonna say that it might have been exciting the first time, but probably lost a lot over time. now think of finding, say... a sword of wounding, or a sword of sharpness. or maybe you have other interesting things you've found. odds are good that the game effect wasn't "+X to hit and damage", or even "+1 to hit and damage, with a really long backstory about who made the sword and who's owned it since then and what it was used for".

and that is where you lose out the most.

[silveralen]

at that point, why not just hire a peasant to follow you around and summon snakes on your behalf with the staff so that it doesn't use up your actions, since that item has absolutely nothing to do with hitting anyone with or without unarmed strikes or natural attacks?

and that is where you lose out the most.

Because both such staffs are exclusive to spell casting classes, any full caster for insects and cleric, druid, or warlock for the python staff. The spells also require control by the user, meaning of the peasant dies the magic goes away until some can re-attune. You question is kinda silly anyways "Why would the wizard bother carrying around a necklace of fireball, jsut hire a peasant to carry it around and throw them."

Helpful hint, druid is a full caster. Someone who only wants to hit things with their claws should play another character, because they are actually required by balance to suck if the only focus on clawing things. If that was a valid playstyle, druid would be broken (see 3.x). Mixing spells with wild shape is the effective moon druid playstyle, be they summons or concentration spells (flame sphere is nice). Those items build on that.

You did notice the section of the DMG about making even bland +1 items unique and flavorful, right?

Also, monk is literally a non issue. He has lots of flavorful melee options. Any sword can be a shortsword, he's prof with staves, and weapons which don't specify can be unarmed weapons.

[SharkForce]

a wizard is presumably focused around casting spells. using magical items that cast spells is within what the wizard is trying to do.

a moon druid, on the other hand, went right past the "spellcaster" path to get to the "wild shape" path. a staff that summons things has absolutely *nothing* to do with the druid being wild shaped and fighting enemies.

that's the difference.

and the DMG can say all it wants about making +1 items exciting and flavourful. at the end of the day, it's still just a +1 to hit and damage. having a history doesn't make what the weapon does any more interesting, any more than an increasing proficiency bonus for your character makes them more exciting and different.

[silveralen]

a wizard is presumably focused around casting spells. using magical items that cast spells is within what the wizard is trying to do.

a moon druid, on the other hand, went right past the "spellcaster" path to get to the "wild shape" path. a staff that summons things has absolutely *nothing* to do with the druid being wild shaped and fighting enemies.

that's the difference.

Do wildshape Druids get 9th level spells? Yes?

Then no they cannot ignore their spellcasting ability and be effective.

A Moon Druid focused only on wildshape who ignore over half their class should be wildly ineffective. They have to be, balance requires it. Now, if there were a type of Druid (or a seperate class) who could shapeshifting but lacked casting ability, yes that's fine. They can be a good as a barbarian of fighter. Moon Druid shouldn't even match a ranger who doesn't use his spells if said Druid never casts, because a moon Druid who does cast is now incredibly broken.


and the DMG can say all it wants about making +1 items exciting and flavourful. at the end of the day, it's still just a +1 to hit and damage. having a history doesn't make what the weapon does any more interesting, any more than an increasing proficiency bonus for your character makes them more exciting and different.

Unless the weapon can detect certain types of enemies, or warn the player of danger, protect them from extreme temperatures, allow them to swim fast etc. Those are suggested minor abilities to apply to any weapon if the DM wants it be more flavorful. There is actually a table you can roll on and get those results.

Then again, a +1 weapon is boring. A +1 weapon that deals 1d6 fire damage is also boring, as is one that grants bonus initiative.

A +1 weapon that is infused with the teachings of ancient swordmaster, his voice guiding the user's strikes and alerting them to danger? That's interesting. As is one that has a minor fiend bound into the blade, a mere imp, who urges the user on to evil deeds while his spite and fiery nature make the weapon more deadly.

Fluff is interesting. A plain +1 is boring, but flat mechanical benefits aren't that exciting either.

[Demonic Spoon]

Do wildshape Druids get 9th level spells? Yes?

Then no they cannot ignore their spellcasting ability and be effective.

A Moon Druid focused only on wildshape who ignore over half their class should be wildly ineffective. They have to be, balance requires it. Now, if there were a type of Druid (or a seperate class) who could shapeshifting but lacked casting ability, yes that's fine. They can be a good as a barbarian of fighter. Moon Druid shouldn't even match a ranger who doesn't use his spells if said Druid never casts, because a moon Druid who does cast is now incredibly broken.



Yup. There's a lot of demand for a Shifter class, but one does not exist. All we have is a full caster class that can shapeshift as a subclass feature.

[SharkForce]

Do wildshape Druids get 9th level spells? Yes?

Then no they cannot ignore their spellcasting ability and be effective.

A Moon Druid focused only on wildshape who ignore over half their class should be wildly ineffective. They have to be, balance requires it. Now, if there were a type of Druid (or a seperate class) who could shapeshifting but lacked casting ability, yes that's fine. They can be a good as a barbarian of fighter. Moon Druid shouldn't even match a ranger who doesn't use his spells if said Druid never casts, because a moon Druid who does cast is now incredibly broken.

if all it takes for a druid to completely invalidate barbarians and fighters is for them to be able to use magical weapons in animal form, that's a problem with barbarians and fighters. particularly since the implication there is that if wildshaped druids with magically enhanced natural attacks are equal to barbarians and fighters with magic weapons, then wildshaped druids without magically enhanced natural attacks are the equal of fighters and barbarians without magic weapons.


Unless the weapon can detect certain types of enemies, or warn the player of danger, protect them from extreme temperatures, allow them to swim fast etc. Those are suggested minor abilities to apply to any weapon if the DM wants it be more flavorful. There is actually a table you can roll on and get those results.

ok, and would any of those weapons be *less* interesting if they didn't have a +1 to hit and damage?


Then again, a +1 weapon is boring. A +1 weapon that deals 1d6 fire damage is also boring, as is one that grants bonus initiative.

A +1 weapon that is infused with the teachings of ancient swordmaster, his voice guiding the user's strikes and alerting them to danger? That's interesting. As is one that has a minor fiend bound into the blade, a mere imp, who urges the user on to evil deeds while his spite and fiery nature make the weapon more deadly.

Fluff is interesting. A plain +1 is boring, but flat mechanical benefits aren't that exciting either.

eh, not really. still boring. it's interesting for a few minutes, but if that was super-exciting, you'd see a lot more adventuring parties hang around in the tavern talking to random patrons, each of whom ultimately has their own backstory, and many of whom will also attempt to persuade the adventurer to do something as well.

there are plenty of examples of magic items, both in the books and in these forums and for that matter across the internet, which are much more interesting than just "here's a +1".

edit: fixed a quote tag.

[Pex]

Also, magic items don't really fit the whole poverty schtick of monks, or the whole "I get everything I need from nature" schtick of druids. So it would make sense to me that they would be balanced to not rely as much on such items, and that design would further make those items less available or useful to them than to other classes that need them more, like Fighters.

Who said all monks have a vow of poverty? Why do druids get everything they need from nature, but it's ok for clerics not to believe they get everything they need from their deity to rely on their faith alone as the other divine class? Paladins smite. Why do they need magic weapons? Should not only the power of their god be what matters? Why should the game designers impose roleplaying choices onto players such that by not following it they're playing wrong?

[archaeo]

Who said all monks have a vow of poverty? Why do druids get everything they need from nature, but it's ok for clerics not to believe they get everything they need from their deity to rely on their faith alone as the other divine class? Paladins smite. Why do they need magic weapons? Should not only the power of their god be what matters? Why should the game designers impose roleplaying choices onto players such that by not following it they're playing wrong?

In all fairness, the system isn't doing that, a bunch of posters are using trying to defend the DMG's lack of items specifically made for a pair of classes ex post facto.

In reality, I assume that the DMG doesn't include these items because it never occurred to the designers that either of these classes really lacked access to items. Druids can use all the same items as everybody else, and the game outright says that DMs can choose to allow the beast forms to use magic items. And, as silveralen says above, Monks have several excellent options for magic weapons, as well as a lot of non-armor magic equipment that will serve them well.

Of course, the germ of what you're saying is true anyway: D&D's classes have strong default flavor, and many of the class features and abilities are strongly flavored as well, which inherently shapes roleplaying choices. That's either the benefit or the downside to a class-based paradigm.

[SharkForce]

monks only have suitable magic weapon options in the sense that you can house rule them in.

after all, a significant portion of their attacks cannot be made with weapons.

if the monk text was alternately changed to read that all of the monk's attack options could be done with any monk weapon, but that the damage of the attack was set by their martial arts damage, that would go a long way towards making it work. but even then you'd have open hand monks wanting to be able to use their open hand abilities...

[silveralen]

monks only have suitable magic weapon options in the sense that you can house rule them in.

1. Unarmed attacks are listed as a weapon.

2. +1-3 weapons specify any, as in any existing weapon.

3. Nothing specifically about unarmed strike is mentioned to disallow it.

So a +1-3 unarmed strike is a legal and existing weapon by the default DMG. It does not need to be house ruled. If a DM says they don't exist, that is a house rule. How he chooses to represent a magic unarmed strike is up to him.

[SharkForce]

1. Unarmed attacks are listed as a weapon.

2. +1-3 weapons specify any, as in any existing weapon.

3. Nothing specifically about unarmed strike is mentioned to disallow it.

So a +1-3 unarmed strike is a legal and existing weapon by the default DMG. It does not need to be house ruled. If a DM says they don't exist, that is a house rule. How he chooses to represent a magic unarmed strike is up to him.

you can't "find" an unarmed strike. in much the same way that the rules don't let you find a gem of +3 to the sword you attach it to, that does not specifically allow for a +3 amulet that boosts your unarmed strike.

after all, it doesn't say "cestus" or "boxing gloves" or "hand wraps", it says "unarmed strike" in the weapon list, not any one of the possible accessories that could be used along with that unarmed strike.

so if you want to argue strict RAW, what it's possible to find is a person whose body is a +3 weapon.

[Fwiffo86]

you can't "find" an unarmed strike. in much the same way that the rules don't let you find a gem of +3 to the sword you attach it to, that does not specifically allow for a +3 amulet that boosts your unarmed strike.

after all, it doesn't say "cestus" or "boxing gloves" or "hand wraps", it says "unarmed strike" in the weapon list, not any one of the possible accessories that could be used along with that unarmed strike.

so if you want to argue strict RAW, what it's possible to find is a person whose body is a +3 weapon.

"GUYS LOOKOUT!!! He's got a dwarf +3!!

[Knaight]

1. Unarmed attacks are listed as a weapon.

2. +1-3 weapons specify any, as in any existing weapon.

3. Nothing specifically about unarmed strike is mentioned to disallow it.

So a +1-3 unarmed strike is a legal and existing weapon by the default DMG. It does not need to be house ruled. If a DM says they don't exist, that is a house rule. How he chooses to represent a magic unarmed strike is up to him.

This is questionable at best, given that the context is in finding a weapon, and the tables for actually generating stuff randomly don't include unarmed strikes.

[Ashrym]

This is questionable at best, given that the context is in finding a weapon, and the tables for actually generating stuff randomly don't include unarmed strikes.

I don't think it matters. There are several weapons to which the bonus can be added that are monk weapons usable with the monk martial arts feature and suitable to all monks. It's players who refuse to use the weapons because they want to use unarmed strikes instead. It's not like a +2 shortsword cannot benefit or be used by a monk.

[Pex]

I don't think it matters. There are several weapons to which the bonus can be added that are monk weapons usable with the monk martial arts feature and suitable to all monks. It's players who refuse to use the weapons because they want to use unarmed strikes instead. It's not like a +2 shortsword cannot benefit or be used by a monk.

That's the problem and point. Players who want to use unarmed strikes are punished for it by not having magic item support for that style.

[silveralen]

you can't "find" an unarmed strike. in much the same way that the rules don't let you find a gem of +3 to the sword you attach it to, that does not specifically allow for a +3 amulet that boosts your unarmed strike.

after all, it doesn't say "cestus" or "boxing gloves" or "hand wraps", it says "unarmed strike" in the weapon list, not any one of the possible accessories that could be used along with that unarmed strike.

so if you want to argue strict RAW, what it's possible to find is a person whose body is a +3 weapon.

And, by strict raw, the monk can use that body as +3 weapon as part of a flurry of blows. It is an unarmed strike after all. If you and your DM dislike the idea of beating someone to death with the arm you ripped off a guy, you could change things certainly, and that's not how I define unarmed strike, but unarmed strike doesn't have an explicit definition in the PHB, given that most people can be expected to reasonably figure it out.

If a monk wears boots and kicks someone, he still made an unarmed strike, agreed? So a +3 unarmed strike could mean a set of +3 boots and gloves. You can argue that this doesn't exist, to which I ask "so your DM doesn't let the monk kick people while wearing boots, or punch them in gloves?" Because if a monk can kick someone and deal unarmed strike damage while wearing boots/gloves, they qualify as an unarmed strike weapon. After all, unarmed strike isn't explicitly established in the book as bare handed punches and kicks.

So it comes down to table. +1-+3 magic unarmed strikes explicitly exist at every table unless DM house rules it, but the form they take changes. If you think it means someone's sawed off arm or leg (because unarmed=bare handed/footed) then you can hit people with that magic arm or leg, and even use martial arts/flurry of blows with it. I think or unarmed strikes as a weapon category including punches with gloves and kicks with boots, and thus can define those items as magical versions. Either way, they exist, yours are just way sillier/more fun.


This is questionable at best, given that the context is in finding a weapon, and the tables for actually generating stuff randomly don't include unarmed strikes.

Sure they do. Page 146 of the DMG, 0-15 "weapon, +1". Flip to the weapon +1 section, and see it is a "weapon (any)" item. Flip to the PHB weapon table and, at the bottom of simple weapons, I do think I see one called unarmed strike. So you can generate a +1 unarmed strike, at least to the extent you can generate a +1 longsword.

Now, if you mean unarmed strike doesn't exist on the table where you can roll to randomly determine what type of weapon your generic +1 is, I'd point out that no such table exists at all this edition. Unless my DMG is defective, or I have gone blind.


That's the problem and point. Players who want to use unarmed strikes are punished for it by not having magic item support for that style.

They still have generic +1-+3 weapons, plus a few other variants. Unless you can find me an actual reason a magic item of type "weapon (any)" can't be unarmed strike, something listed as a type of weapon in the PHB.

And I do mean a RAW reason, we already agree from a balance perspective unarmed weapons are good so if we apply are our judgment they exist anyways. Give me a single written rule that says it isn't allowed by the base rules.

[Ashrym]

That's the problem and point. Players who want to use unarmed strikes are punished for it by not having magic item support for that style.

They are not punished anymore than players who want to use all of their abilities with weapons.

[Eslin]

They are not punished anymore than players who want to use all of their abilities with weapons.

Yes, they are. Someone who wants to hit things with a longsword can easily find a heap of generic and unique magical longswords. Someone who wants to hit things with unarmed strikes or natural weapons gets... nothing.

[Pex]

They are not punished anymore than players who want to use all of their abilities with weapons.

Monks are required to use their bonus attack or flurry of blows with unarmed strikes so cannot use all their abilities with weapons.

[SharkForce]

Monks are required to use their bonus attack or flurry of blows with unarmed strikes so cannot use all their abilities with weapons.

not to mention certain monk subclass abilities require unarmed strikes.

@silveralen: boots and gloves are not weapons, any more than a sword's sheathe is a weapon. you cannot find a piece of cloth that you wrap around a club to turn the club into a magical weapon, why would that work for any other weapon if we're assuming it uses the exact same rules?

[GiantOctopodes]

not to mention certain monk subclass abilities require unarmed strikes.

@silveralen: boots and gloves are not weapons, any more than a sword's sheathe is a weapon. you cannot find a piece of cloth that you wrap around a club to turn the club into a magical weapon, why would that work for any other weapon if we're assuming it uses the exact same rules?

Because it's magic.

And who says you can't find a piece of cloth to wrap around a club to turn the club into a magic weapon? That actually sounds *way* cooler and like something I'm more likely to use in play than finding a club +3. The idea of trinkets, wrappings, sheathes or other accessories that impart magical properties to the weapon make it possible for the same beloved weapon a player has been using since the words "you are in a tavern" allow for the kind of bond with their equipment you just can't get if they throw aside their weapon the moment they see something shinier. I love the concept of player's actions making items magical (slaying a red dragon makes the sword used to do so deal extra flame damage, being used as a mirror to avoid the gaze of a basilisk or medusa makes a shield grant resistance against magic or immune to petrification or something, the boots worn by the rogue as they sneak past 1000 foes eventually silence the footsteps of anyone wearing them, etc), but this seems like a suitable compromise, and based on the attunement system, seems totally viable. Thanks for (indirectly) a pretty awesome idea.

[silveralen]

@silveralen: boots and gloves are not weapons, any more than a sword's sheathe is a weapon. you cannot find a piece of cloth that you wrap around a club to turn the club into a magical weapon, why would that work for any other weapon if we're assuming it uses the exact same rules?

Because the rules say you can find a +3 magical unarmed strike, and it is my job as DM to figure out what form such an item takes. It is up to the DM to decide how such an item appears and looks, but it explicitly 100% exists according to the DMG's default rules.

+3 unarmed strike items are right there. Keep complaining if you like, but they are literally part of the default rules. You can read where it is allowed. I have no idea how they could have made it more, make a special +3 magic item just for unarmed under a special listing? Why? It is a weapon, like any other. Honestly, I think you are just carrying some previous edition baggage.

[Ashrym]

Monks are required to use their bonus attack or flurry of blows with unarmed strikes so cannot use all their abilities with weapons.

Which was exactly my point. Adding bonus items just for unarmed attacks means monks can simply use unarmed attacks for everything because weapons just became superfluous for them while the reverse is not true and they cannot use weapons for everything. Without additional items specifically for unarmed strike designed to emulate using weapons there are advantages and disadvantages to both and changing that makes it a one-sided decision.

[SharkForce]

Which was exactly my point. Adding bonus items just for unarmed attacks means monks can simply use unarmed attacks for everything because weapons just became superfluous for them while the reverse is not true and they cannot use weapons for everything. Without additional items specifically for unarmed strike designed to emulate using weapons there are advantages and disadvantages to both and changing that makes it a one-sided decision.

there would still be advantages and disadvantages.

a monk with a quarterstaff could use polearm master to get a free attack every time someone gets close to them.

a monk with a spear can deal piercing damage.

a monk with darts can make ranged attacks.

a monk using an edged weapon can poison the blade.

and so on.

[Ashrym]

there would still be advantages and disadvantages.

a monk with a quarterstaff could use polearm master to get a free attack every time someone gets close to them.

a monk with a spear can deal piercing damage.

a monk with darts can make ranged attacks.

a monk using an edged weapon can poison the blade.

and so on.

That's pretty situational compared to opening up all ki abilities connected to unarmed attacks on every attack as an option.

[Knaight]

+3 unarmed strike items are right there. Keep complaining if you like, but they are literally part of the default rules. You can read where it is allowed. I have no idea how they could have made it more, make a special +3 magic item just for unarmed under a special listing? Why? It is a weapon, like any other. Honestly, I think you are just carrying some previous edition baggage.

Given that the entire concept of finding magical unarmed strikes is just weird, explicitly stating that the rules work that way is hardly unreasonable. It's not like D&D shies away from repeating rules or clarifying already implied rules elsewhere. As for previous edition baggage, it's really not necessary. The example weapons include no unarmed strikes, they are functionally different from all other weapons in a number of respects (starting with how literally every other weapon is a tool that is used and not a set of body parts), and the literal meaning of the phrase "unarmed strike" is a hit without a weapon.

[Telwar]

Which was exactly my point. Adding bonus items just for unarmed attacks means monks can simply use unarmed attacks for everything because weapons just became superfluous for them while the reverse is not true and they cannot use weapons for everything.

...how is the monk using unarmed strike for everything a problem, exactly, again?

[Ashrym]

...how is the monk using unarmed strike for everything a problem, exactly, again?

It's unfair to weapon users if it's almost always a disadvantage for weapon using monks to use weapons because unarmed strikes have all the advantages of weapons but weapons are restricted by not allowing ki attacks on all of their attacks like unarmed strikes can. It gives one style the best of both worlds.

There's no point to monks using monk weapons if all it does is restrict the monk's options compared to not using monk weapons.

[Eslin]

It's unfair to weapon users if it's almost always a disadvantage for weapon using monks to use weapons because unarmed strikes have all the advantages of weapons but weapons are restricted by not allowing ki attacks on all of their attacks like unarmed strikes can. It gives one style the best of both worlds.

There's no point to monks using monk weapons if all it does is restrict the monk's options compared to not using monk weapons.

And yet there are a ton of other classes that can only really use weapons well, while you're not complaining that a fighter has no optimal uses for unarmed strike. Monks best usage being unarmed strike seems like a fine idea to me.

[Ashrym]

And yet there are a ton of other classes that can only really use weapons well, while you're not complaining that a fighter has no optimal uses for unarmed strike. Monks best usage being unarmed strike seems like a fine idea to me.

Monks are designed to use monk weapons the way they are. Monks have significant advantages to using weapons and to not using weapons the way they are. Changes to magic items that duplicate the weapon advantages only lopsides that one way.

I am not complaining about fighters because they are designed to use weapons instead of unarmed attacks, unlike monks, and leaving things the same or changing things won't impact fighter design one way or the other. A lack of impact to a fighter is irrelevant to an impact to a monk an pointless.

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's worth noting that "monk weapons" become objectively better than non-monk weapons once you get far enough into the game, and that applies equally to comparisons with non-monks using the same weapon. A monk can turn "generic +3 weapon" into a 1d10+3 weapon and use it beyond its full effectiveness if it is a a club, dagger, handaxe, javelin, light hammer, mace, quarterstaff, sickle, spear, or shortsword (11 total melee weapons). Compare and contrast with the rogue, who gets the same proficiencies as the monk, plus longsword and rapier, but cannot sneak attack with weapons that aren't finesse or ranged weapons, relegating them to the dagger, rapier, or shortsword (three melee weapons). Of these weapons, the monk is superior at the use of all of them except the rapier, because it can use unarmed damage scaling. That is sort of huge in a system with bounded accuracy.

The availability of magical plate is also vastly overstated here. You don't even get to roll on the only magic item table with magical plate (Magic Item Table I) until you reach the hoard of a Challenge 11-16 creature, at which point you have an 8% chance of even being able to roll once on the right table (20% chance to roll 1d4 times at Challenge 17+). Once you get to that table, you have a 2% chance of landing +1 plate (60-61 on Magic Item Table I), .187% chance of landing +2 plate (76 on Magic Item Table I, then roll 3-4 on the resultant 1d12), and .083% chance of landing +3 plate (76 on Magic Item Table I, then roll 12 on the resultant 1d12). To put things in perspective, you have a .16% chance of getting +1 plate, .01336% chance of getting +2 plate, and .00664% chance of getting +3 plate per Challenge 11-16 hoard (of which you are expected to receive 12 in a 1-20 campaign). For a Challenge 17+ hoard (of which you are expected to receive eight), your odds are better: using average distribution of the d4s, you have a 1% chance of getting +1 plate, .0835% chance of getting +2 plate, and a .0415% chance of getting +3 plate per hoard.

Bracers of Defense, by contrast, show up on Magic Item Table G. While it only has a 1% chance of being rolled on Magic Item Table G (roll of 26), Magic Item Table G shows up MUCH more frequently (3 times on Challenge 0-4; 4d4 times on Challenge 5-10; 8d4 times on Challenge 11-16; and 4d4 times on Challenge 17+). Using average distribution of the d4s, it has a .03% chance of showing up in a Challenge 0-4 hoard (of which you are expected to receive seven), .1% chance of showing up in a Challenge 5-10 hoard (of which you are expected to receive 18), .2% chance for a Challenge 11-16 hoard (of which you are expected to receive 12), and .1% chance for a Challenge 17+ hoard (of which you are expected to receive eight).

A fighter wielding a Defender longsword and +3 shield while wearing +3 plate has a much higher AC (variable between 26 and 29) than a monk with 20 DEX and 20 WIS with Bracers of Defense (22) for the same attunement investment, but the fighter required two Legendary items (Defender and +3 plate) and one Very Rare item (+3 shield) to the monk's one Rare item (Bracers of Defense). For the same rarity and with the same odds (1% on Magic Item Table G), the absolute best a fighter could possibly do is nonmagical plate with a +2 shield, which gives an AC of... 22. Admittedly, this is without the attribute investment of the monk (which adds two attributes to its AC to the fighter's zero), but monk's need for DEX is equivalent to the fighter's need for STR in all respects, so the only way monk actually comes behind is by being slightly more MAD in its need for WIS, and this devolves into an issue of class features, not item distributions.

[Rowan Wolf]

1. Unarmed attacks are listed as a weapon.

2. +1-3 weapons specify any, as in any existing weapon.

3. Nothing specifically about unarmed strike is mentioned to disallow it.

So a +1-3 unarmed strike is a legal and existing weapon by the default DMG. It does not need to be house ruled. If a DM says they don't exist, that is a house rule. How he chooses to represent a magic unarmed strike is up to him.

Ok we've defeated the grandmaster of the temple of fist, his fists are legendary +3 fists of doesn't really matter magic fist.

Monk: We're going to need a saw, some string and someone trained in Wisdom (medicine).

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok we've defeated the grandmaster of the temple of fist, his fists are legendary +3 fists of doesn't really matter magic fist.

Monk: We're going to need a saw, some string and someone trained in Wisdom (medicine).

Impossible! Nobody trains in Wisdom (Medicine)!

[silveralen]

Ok we've defeated the grandmaster of the temple of fist, his fists are legendary +3 fists of doesn't really matter magic fist.

Monk: We're going to need a saw, some string and someone trained in Wisdom (medicine).

Hey, if your DM has you sawing off people's limbs and then bludgeoning enemies with them, go for it. It really just depends on how you define unarmed strike.

If it has to be a bare handed attack, then yes you now have a limb of +3 you can bludgeon people with. Not sure why the string is needed, holding it like a club still leaves it as an unarmed strike using this definition.

I think defining unarmed strike as a strike without a held weapon makes more sense, given that gloves/boots don't prevent unarmed strikes typically at my table. Thus making magic unarmed strike weapons look like boots or gloves seems reasonable to me. But, if you don't hold with gloves being a variation on unarmed strike as a weapon, then by all means wield that man's arm and slaughter all with it.


Given that the entire concept of finding magical unarmed strikes is just weird, explicitly stating that the rules work that way is hardly unreasonable. It's not like D&D shies away from repeating rules or clarifying already implied rules elsewhere. As for previous edition baggage, it's really not necessary. The example weapons include no unarmed strikes, they are functionally different from all other weapons in a number of respects (starting with how literally every other weapon is a tool that is used and not a set of body parts), and the literal meaning of the phrase "unarmed strike" is a hit without a weapon.

Yet the only place we see it mentioned outside monk's class abilities is the weapon table, as a weapon.

If you want to use RAW, use the actual RAW.

If you want to start talking about what is reasonable to assume... well I certainly don't think it is reasonable to assume monk's shouldn't be able to find enchanted unarmed strike items. Considering that most people in this thread are complaining about the perceived lack, they also seem to find it unreasonable. So it seems safe for everyone who feel this way to RAI it as a legitimate form of magic weapon.

The DM can certainly decide he doesn't care about the fact such items exist by RAW, and he can decide it is perfectly fair for the monk even if such items don't exist. Adding in a specific item called "amulet of mighty fists" won't change that, DM controls access to treasure and he decided he didn't want unarmed strike magic weapons.

[Pex]

Ok we've defeated the grandmaster of the temple of fist, his fists are legendary +3 fists of doesn't really matter magic fist.

Monk: We're going to need a saw, some string and someone trained in Wisdom (medicine).

If you want the Hand Of Vecna, you have to start small and work your way up.

[GiantOctopodes]

Hey, if your DM has you sawing off people's limbs and then bludgeoning enemies with them, go for it. It really just depends on how you define unarmed strike.

If it has to be a bare handed attack, then yes you now have a limb of +3 you can bludgeon people with. Not sure why the string is needed, holding it like a club still leaves it as an unarmed strike using this definition.

I think defining unarmed strike as a strike without a held weapon makes more sense, given that gloves/boots don't prevent unarmed strikes typically at my table. Thus making magic unarmed strike weapons look like boots or gloves seems reasonable to me. But, if you don't hold with gloves being a variation on unarmed strike as a weapon, then by all means wield that man's arm and slaughter all with it.


I'm pretty sure the intention is for the Monk to also saw off his own hand / arm and stitch on the +3 one, but I may have read that one more darkly than intended.

[Knaight]

Yet the only place we see it mentioned outside monk's class abilities is the weapon table, as a weapon.

If you want to use RAW, use the actual RAW.

If you want to start talking about what is reasonable to assume... well I certainly don't think it is reasonable to assume monk's shouldn't be able to find enchanted unarmed strike items. Considering that most people in this thread are complaining about the perceived lack, they also seem to find it unreasonable. So it seems safe for everyone who feel this way to RAI it as a legitimate form of magic weapon.
My point is that the books are conveying RAW poorly. I'm not saying it isn't a legitimate form of magic weapon, just that because the term "unarmed strike" literally means "striking without a weapon" and there are no example magic unarmed strikes, it would probably be useful to have a sidebar or similar explicitly stating that magic unarmed strikes are a thing, and maybe even detailing what that often looks like.



The DM can certainly decide he doesn't care about the fact such items exist by RAW, and he can decide it is perfectly fair for the monk even if such items don't exist. Adding in a specific item called "amulet of mighty fists" won't change that, DM controls access to treasure and he decided he didn't want unarmed strike magic weapons.
Any DM using random treasure will be affected. It's not going to matter to the people arguing rules minutia on a forum with a basis of experience in other games; it's going to matter to people who are new. Explicit inclusion of that item will get it in games.

[Rowan Wolf]

If you want the Hand Of Vecna, you have to start small and work your way up.

A divine Stranger, not what I'd want, but I won't judge you.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

+1+2+3 'unarmed strike' weapons are boring no matter how you slice it.

If you want monk items you should look at things that burn ki to create special effects.

*A spear that lets you use your Deflect Missiles feature an unlimited # of times per round if you spend a Ki point. The item can also burn its own magic to do this for even non-Monk characters, but after that becomes mundane for 24 hrs.

*Fist wraps that can magically shoot forth and yank an opponent, or reel the monk around like Batman.

*A Diadem of truth that can shine light magically. Spend Ki to create a magic light that shatters illusions and reveals that which is hidden.

also instead of magic robes i'd look at stuff like magic tatoo ink that toughens the flesh. either AC or DR.

[Knaight]

+1+2+3 'unarmed strike' weapons are boring no matter how you slice it.

Sure. This would mostly be a side effect of +x weapons being the most boring weapon class in general though. It's not the unarmed part that's the problem here.

[Telwar]

It's unfair to weapon users if it's almost always a disadvantage for weapon using monks to use weapons because unarmed strikes have all the advantages of weapons but weapons are restricted by not allowing ki attacks on all of their attacks like unarmed strikes can. It gives one style the best of both worlds.

There's no point to monks using monk weapons if all it does is restrict the monk's options compared to not using monk weapons.

The problem is that assumes that the players who want to play monks should be using weapons. That's not a universal thing, though; I, personally, don't envision monks using manufactured weapons, and being forced to use Green Destiny (or its +1 equivalent, Mauve Backache) instead of getting something that boosts my ability to use my body as my weapon is really, really annoying.

And while the DM *can* fix it (along with everything else), they shouldn't have to. Monks and feral-type druids have been in the game for YEARS, and there's no reason there should be 15 different types of magic swords, but nothing that can enhance someone who doesn't use manufactured weapons, unless all they did was take the 2e DMG magic item section and cut-and-paste it into the 5e DMG. Which is what I strongly suspect they did. I'm actually surprised they put in rods for warlocks.

[Ashrym]

The problem is that assumes that the players who want to play monks should be using weapons. That's not a universal thing, though; I, personally, don't envision monks using manufactured weapons, and being forced to use Green Destiny (or its +1 equivalent, Mauve Backache) instead of getting something that boosts my ability to use my body as my weapon is really, really annoying.

Monk weapons and damage progression is part of the martial arts class feature. I think it's natural to assume that players who are playing monks might want to use their monk weapons class feature.

It's much less likely the feature was included because it should be sacrificed in favor of other players' one true wayism that unarmed strikes cover everything because monk.

[RedMage125]

Insignia of the Claws is the item from the adventure, doesn't specify if it's an amulet or a brooch, but it allows unarmed strikes and natural attacks to get a +1 to hit and damage and makes them considered magical.

Any DM could simply include a +2 version of this when a "+2 weapon" is called for on a random magic item table. since there's no sub-table of weapons for the DM to randomly roll on anyway.

However, for the people complaining about Monks keeping up with fighters in terms of numbers, let's look at AC, assuming level 20 characters who have maxxed out their stats as much as possible.

A Monk could have a DEX and WIS of 20 (+5 modifiers), Bracers of Defense, Cloak of Protection, Ring of Protection, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, and a Defender Short Sword in one hand and a Staff of Power in the other. That's a 27 AC, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 30, unless I missed something.

Fighter in Heavy Armor can get Full Plate +3, a Shield +3, Cloak of Protection, Ring of Protection, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, and a Defender Longsword. That's a 29 AC, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 32.

A Barbarian with a DEX of 20 and a CON of 24 (+7 modifier) can have a +3 shield, Cloak, Ring, Ioun Stone, and Defender Scimitar (why not, it's a finesse weapon) can have an AC of 30, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 33.

Ancient DRAGONS have Armor Classes up to 22. The freaking TARRASQUE has an AC of 25.

Granted, all that assumes some sort of Monty Haul whering level 20 players have the best of every magic item they could want (and also does not factor in stat boosting books, which can exceed the 20 mark). But a Monk is only a few points behind the Fighter, and most Fighters probably don't want Defenders. And most things like Ioun Stones and Cloaks/Rings of Protection are going to go to classes like casters and monks who can't wear armor to begin with. So a practical application will very likely show the monk either equal to the party Fighter or maybe one point behind, on average. Which is probably a good estimate, given that the "everything maxxed" theoretical figure showed only 2 points behind.

[SharkForce]

and yet, monk weapons would still be useful even if you could get a +3 "unarmed strike" weapon (ranged attacks, different damage types, usefulness with different feats, superior damage at low levels, etc).

i will say that one change i would make is to allow all the default monk abilities to work with weapons (but setting the damage to their martial arts value) in addition to allowing magical unarmed strike items.

but i would probably not change the archetype abilities... an open hand monk is presumably called an open hand monk because of their focus on not using weapons :P

[Eslin]

Insignia of the Claws is the item from the adventure, doesn't specify if it's an amulet or a brooch, but it allows unarmed strikes and natural attacks to get a +1 to hit and damage and makes them considered magical.

Any DM could simply include a +2 version of this when a "+2 weapon" is called for on a random magic item table. since there's no sub-table of weapons for the DM to randomly roll on anyway.

However, for the people complaining about Monks keeping up with fighters in terms of numbers, let's look at AC, assuming level 20 characters who have maxxed out their stats as much as possible.

A Monk could have a DEX and WIS of 20 (+5 modifiers), Bracers of Defense, Cloak of Protection, Ring of Protection, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, and a Defender Short Sword in one hand and a Staff of Power in the other. That's a 27 AC, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 30, unless I missed something.

Fighter in Heavy Armor can get Full Plate +3, a Shield +3, Cloak of Protection, Ring of Protection, Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, and a Defender Longsword. That's a 29 AC, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 32.

A Barbarian with a DEX of 20 and a CON of 24 (+7 modifier) can have a +3 shield, Cloak, Ring, Ioun Stone, and Defender Scimitar (why not, it's a finesse weapon) can have an AC of 30, with an additional +1 to +3, depending on how much bonus from the sword goes to AC. So a max AC of 33.

Ancient DRAGONS have Armor Classes up to 22. The freaking TARRASQUE has an AC of 25.

Granted, all that assumes some sort of Monty Haul whering level 20 players have the best of every magic item they could want (and also does not factor in stat boosting books, which can exceed the 20 mark). But a Monk is only a few points behind the Fighter, and most Fighters probably don't want Defenders. And most things like Ioun Stones and Cloaks/Rings of Protection are going to go to classes like casters and monks who can't wear armor to begin with. So a practical application will very likely show the monk either equal to the party Fighter or maybe one point behind, on average. Which is probably a good estimate, given that the "everything maxxed" theoretical figure showed only 2 points behind.

A practical application will show a monk several AC behind a fighter, since even if you go really hard you need a minimum of level 16 to max both dexterity and wisdom as a monk.

[Telwar]

Monk weapons and damage progression is part of the martial arts class feature. I think it's natural to assume that players who are playing monks might want to use their monk weapons class feature.

It's much less likely the feature was included because it should be sacrificed in favor of other players' one true wayism that unarmed strikes cover everything because monk.

OTOH, forcing them to use monk weapons is just as obnoxious of a one-true-wayism, and the rules should support both. But, of course, they don't.

[Rowan Wolf]

Just putting this out here, but with the monk already by passing magical damage resistance (post level 6), and the bound accuracy, the +1-+3 aren't really there for the assumed math fixes that 3rd/4th edition had them for. So what is the issue with is the lack of items to modify unarmed strikes besides everyone else gets these magic weapons (many of which limit the most powerful options a character, has and with only a few exception come in a shortsword model that is monk friendly, and are not guaranteed)?

[Eslin]

Just putting this out here, but with the monk already by passing magical damage resistance (post level 6), and the bound accuracy, the +1-+3 aren't really there for the assumed math fixes that 3rd/4th edition had them for. So what is the issue with is the lack of items to modify unarmed strikes besides everyone else gets these magic weapons (many of which limit the most powerful options a character, has and with only a few exception come in a shortsword model that is monk friendly, and are not guaranteed)?

It's the other way around. Thanks to bounded accuracy a +1 is more important now, not less.

[Rowan Wolf]

But does the game design assume you will have +x to hit from magic weapons at level y?

[Ashrym]

OTOH, forcing them to use monk weapons is just as obnoxious of a one-true-wayism, and the rules should support both. But, of course, they don't.

No one forces them to use monk weapons. They choose monk weapons when the advantage is there and they choose unarmed attacks when the advantage is there. Weapon properties are the incentive for using the weapons. Unarmed strike ki abilities are the incentive for unarmed strikes.

Giving weapon effect bonuses to unarmed strikes removes the incentive from weapon attacks but leaving them out doesn't remove the incentive for unarmed strikes so what you want is what doesn't support both but what I want does.

To accommodate both systems requires a reasonable tradeoff and decision point where both maintain enough distinct advantage, or giving weapon advantages to unarmed strikes means giving unarmed strikes advantages to weapons in order to maintain both styles for players who want one or the other.

Giving weapon advantages to unarmed strikes without some return consideration is what you describe because you haven't offered something to coincide with lost advantage and why what you state doesn't support both styles. It just looks like another case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

What you have stated so far does not support both styles.

[BladeWing81]

I'm a little late finding this thread but here are my two cents.
OK, Here's the deal. I'm currently playing a lvl 5 Way of the 4 elements Bronce Dragonborn Monk. I'm also playing on the adventure league which means all the guys that simply said to homebrew the solution is not valid for me and my DM. also, since a few months ago a PHB errata came out and removed unarmed strikes from the weapon table.
my current damage output is really good using two handed quarterstaff (1d8) and unarmed strikes (1d6)
that being said once I get to lvl 9 I'm ditching the Quarterstaff since unarmed strikes will also be 1d8 and I love that idea, I want my character to litterally be a dragon bruce lee.

Now lets say on lvl 15 I get the super awesome "staff of striking" with +3 hit/damage and extra 1d10 on hit. sweet right?..... Not really, it was a cool idea for me in the beginning when I was lvl 1 but now I'm 5 lvls depp and the best part of my character are the punches and the kicks! I hate the idea that later on I HAVE to use a weapon!

I would rather there be a way to magically improve the unarmed strikes like for instance: "Fist of the hill Tiger" which are brass knuckles that just grants +2 hit/damage for unarmed strikes and nothing else. WHY? becuase it sounds awesome to a monk, if you ask anyone that plays a monk in D&D we WANT that! but there's is nothing like that in the game right now except for "insignia of Claws".

This is the crux of the whole argument I know that there's some really cool weapons that the monk can use aside from the unarmed strikes.... but why couldn't we have some more options other that some magic itmes that improves AC and one necklace to play a fist/kick only monk?

[Malifice]

I'm a little late finding this thread but here are my two cents.
OK, Here's the deal. I'm currently playing a lvl 5 Way of the 4 elements Bronce Dragonborn Monk. I'm also playing on the adventure league which means all the guys that simply said to homebrew the solution is not valid for me and my DM. also, since a few months ago a PHB errata came out and removed unarmed strikes from the weapon table.
my current damage output is really good using two handed quarterstaff (1d8) and unarmed strikes (1d6)
that being said once I get to lvl 9 I'm ditching the Quarterstaff since unarmed strikes will also be 1d8 and I love that idea, I want my character to litterally be a dragon bruce lee.

Now lets say on lvl 15 I get the super awesome "staff of striking" with +3 hit/damage and extra 1d10 on hit. sweet right?..... Not really, it was a cool idea for me in the beginning when I was lvl 1 but now I'm 5 lvls depp and the best part of my character are the punches and the kicks! I hate the idea that later on I HAVE to use a weapon!

I would rather there be a way to magically improve the unarmed strikes like for instance: "Fist of the hill Tiger" which are brass knuckles that just grants +2 hit/damage for unarmed strikes and nothing else. WHY? becuase it sounds awesome to a monk, if you ask anyone that plays a monk in D&D we WANT that! but there's is nothing like that in the game right now except for "insignia of Claws".

This is the crux of the whole argument I know that there's some really cool weapons that the monk can use aside from the unarmed strikes.... but why couldn't we have some more options other that some magic itmes that improves AC and one necklace to play a fist/kick only monk?

The best way to increase monk unarmed damage is to dip ranger for hunters mark and colossus slayer or battle master for superiority dice and action surge.

Monk DPR is great at 1-5 but then drops off markedly afterwards.

They make up for it with mobility, status effects and the best defences in the game.

[Fighting_Ferret]

OK, lots of examples being shown here, but lets look at the differences...

Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (no bonus) at +11 to hit and does 1d8+7 x 4 avg damage: 12
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (+3) at +14 to hit and does 1d8+10 x 4 avg damage: 15
Top AC 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor
Top AC 26 - This requires both a +3 full plate and a +3 shield (note +3 armor is a legendary item and +3 shield is very rare)

Lvl 20 Monk w/20 dexterity - attacks with all unarmed attacks at +11 to hit and does 1d20+5 X 4 by using a ki point on furry of blows avg damage: 16
Top AC: 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor

[Strill]

Monks benefit from Wis boosting items way more so that a Fighter.

Plus, bracers of protection stacks with Unarmored defence so that evens up the AC issue for all but heavily decked out sword and board Fighters.

Nothing stopping monks using magic Monk weapons also.

Monks may get slightly less utility with weapons and armor choices than Fighters. But I dont mind that. The Monk is already a very strong class in 5e.

Bracers of Protection cost you an attunement slot. Magic armor doesn't. Weapons don't work with Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows.

[Malifice]

OK, lots of examples being shown here, but lets look at the differences...

Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (no bonus) at +11 to hit and does 1d8+7 x 4 avg damage: 12
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (+3) at +14 to hit and does 1d8+10 x 4 avg damage: 15
Top AC 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor
Top AC 26 - This requires both a +3 full plate and a +3 shield (note +3 armor is a legendary item and +3 shield is very rare)

Lvl 20 Monk w/20 dexterity - attacks with all unarmed attacks at +11 to hit and does 1d20+5 X 4 by using a ki point on furry of blows avg damage: 16
Top AC: 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor

Those numbers are off. I do expect a Fighter to have higher AC, much higher DPR and more hit points than the Monk on average.

The Monk wins with the best 'at will' mobility in the game, potent battlefield control and lock down abilities, and a suite of defenses and immunities on par with the paladin as the best in the game.


Bracers of Protection cost you an attunement slot. Magic armor doesn't. Weapons don't work with Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows.

Monks are not supposed to have equal DPR of a Fighter. Thats what the Fighter does. Monks make up for it in other ways. Monks are not 'tanks' they're precision munitions. Run up to 'Boss' type past mooks (or teleport or go ethereal or fly), stunlock him while sitting him on his arse. Have enough tricks and defences to look after yourself while waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

Re weapons, Flurry can be used with a greatsword in hand (although technically this reduces your unarmed damage), and all weapons work on the attacks granted via the attack action. If the weapon is a monk weapon then they also allow a bonus MA attacks.

The big hurt for monks is the lack of a feat like sharpshooter or GWM to up damage.

Like I said, the best thing for a monk to do if he wants to inrease his DPR is to dip into a DPR class. The best one in the game for melee DPR is the Fighter, and a three level dip into BM leaves the monks martial arts dice at a d10, gives him 4xd8 superiority dice, an action surge and a second wind to spend every 2-3 encounters (precise strike to land those stunning fists, pushing strike to knock the dude prone, and disarming attack to even the oddshim). Mariner style (for +1 to AC and a climb and swim speed = to your land speed) is the best - duelling and archery come second.


Move 50' to enemy, using your action to dash another 50' if needed. Run along the walls or jump over the enemies if no clear line exists. If dash not needed punch enemy twice. After this, use your bonus action to get two more unarmed strikes with each such strike stunning the enemy till the end of your next turn (SF), disarming him or his weapon or spell focus (BM maneuver), and knocking him 10' back and prone (OHM). For extra lols pick his weapon/ spell focus up afterwards and sheathe it with your free object interaction for the round.

If also a fighter, fee free to action surge to hit him a few more times, or just use the extra action for a dodge while you wait for the cavalry to arrive. Engage mooks in the meantime, remembering to re-stun the BBEG as you go.

Monks dont get their power from DPR. They're a party based boss hunting, chaos causing precision BBEG lock down device.

[PoeticDwarf]

I've been looking through the DMG, and it seems that the person who informed me there would be unarmed/unarmoured boosting options was incorrect.

There is one item of +2 AC when unarmoured and seemingly nothing for boosting unarmed or natural attacks, compared to the large number of swords, staves and maces. Where are all the monk and druid options? Did I just miss them?

We have a campaign with 5 mighty weapons, one of them is Hazirawn, but about this, one of the weapons are actually two weapons, two fists. If you want better unarmed than the DM can homebrew something. The insigna of claws from HOTDQ can also work.

[BladeWing81]

We have a campaign with 5 mighty weapons, one of them is Hazirawn, but about this, one of the weapons are actually two weapons, two fists. If you want better unarmed than the DM can homebrew something. The insigna of claws from HOTDQ can also work.

like I mentioned before, homebrew stuff would work normally, but what about people that play adventure league where that is not allowed? Magic Items need an official Item sheet to be valid for play. right now there is 1 item that helps on this....1... over 10 swords, 8 staffs and a bunch of other crap. But for unarmed combat?.... 1... that came in 4 months after the DMG........1.

Bitter? yes... very.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Those numbers are off. I do expect a Fighter to have higher AC, much higher DPR and more hit points than the Monk on average.

You are correct I mistyped the monks damage dice, and there is the fact the fighter should have a significant HP advantage as well. I was merely comparing the damage output and the AC rating. Magic Items of +3 can't be assumed, especially 2 of them, but I think it is safe to say that a few bonus points between armor and shield could be acquired.

--Updated--
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (no bonus) at +11 to hit and does 1d8+7 x 4 avg damage: 12
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (+3) at +14 to hit and does 1d8+10 x 4 avg damage: 15
Top AC 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor
Top AC 26 - This requires both a +3 full plate and a +3 shield (note +3 armor is a legendary item and +3 shield is very rare)

Lvl 20 Monk w/20 dexterity - attacks with all unarmed attacks at +11 to hit and does 1d10+5 X 4 by using a ki point on furry of blows avg damage: 11
Top AC: 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor

I still really like the rest of your post Malifice, the monk is not a fighter and shouldn't be compared to one, but as you say they are the ones that jump into the back row and mess up the enemy artillery/support.

[Malifice]

You are correct I mistyped the monks damage dice, and there is the fact the fighter should have a significant HP advantage as well. I was merely comparing the damage output and the AC rating. Magic Items of +3 can't be assumed, especially 2 of them, but I think it is safe to say that a few bonus points between armor and shield could be acquired.

--Updated--
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (no bonus) at +11 to hit and does 1d8+7 x 4 avg damage: 12
Lvl 20 fighter w/20 strength & dueling style - attacks with a longsword (+3) at +14 to hit and does 1d8+10 x 4 avg damage: 15
Top AC 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor
Top AC 26 - This requires both a +3 full plate and a +3 shield (note +3 armor is a legendary item and +3 shield is very rare)

Lvl 20 Monk w/20 dexterity - attacks with all unarmed attacks at +11 to hit and does 1d10+5 X 4 by using a ki point on furry of blows avg damage: 11
Top AC: 20 - no magic ability increases or magical armor

I still really like the rest of your post Malifice, the monk is not a fighter and shouldn't be compared to one, but as you say they are the ones that jump into the back row and mess up the enemy artillery/support.

Yeah man, they have different roles. The monk can double as a tank in a pinch (he still has respectable DPR and defences) but his main power as a striker comes from his ability to get where he needs to be, and deliver a whole bunch of nasty save or suck effects on a priority target, shutting it down while the tanks and casters deal with other enemies. Elemental fist monks also gain some mook clearance powers via AOE effects. All three archetypes contain either buffs to the save or suck abilities (darkness, knock downs etc) or mobility options (fly, shadow jump, denying struck foes reaction AoOs etc) that help in this role over and above the base line of massive move speed, bonus action dash, double jump height, and wushu style wall running.

Your party monk should look for the bearded robed bad guy in robes with a staff and get to him ASAP to lock him down and await the cavalry. A lot of the monks power relies in playing him right - too many people try and play them as tanks and get disappointed past 5th level as the party great sword figjter or pole arm paladin leaps past them in both DPR, AC and hit points.

You're not a tank smashing through the front lines. You're a special forces soldier that goes after high priority targets deep in the enemy lines, often far from friendly support. And monks have all the tools in the box to be amazing at that task. Even from 5th level they can force 4 saves in a single round for the enemy wizard or other priority target to resist stunning fist. Considering the short nature of 5e ecounters, that's a massive boost to the party. Also consider that stunning fist knocks them out till the end of your next turn giving you a whole round of wailing on them at advantage while they sit there drooling like an idiot (likely stunning them again) and upping your DPR for that round considerably.

Put Mage slayer and and mobility feats on them (and a dip into BM for a few choice manouvers, sup dice and action surge) and they can be utter nightmares to deal with.

IMO it was an intentional design choice not to give them too many items that boost DPR and AC - that's the realm of the fighters and so forth, and they don't get half the tricks a monk gets in return.

[KorvinStarmast]

We have a campaign with 5 mighty weapons, one of them is Hazirawn, but about this, one of the weapons are actually two weapons, two fists. If you want better unarmed than the DM can homebrew something. The insigna of claws from HOTDQ can also work. In a FWIW moment Eslin (to whom you replied) was Banned

@Bladewing81: thanks for the thread Necromancy, interesting issue with monks and weapons. Since the Insignia of the Claws canon, being published in HOTDQ, does that not make it an official addition and thus eligible for Adventure League play?

If not, why not? (curious, I am).

[BladeWing81]

In a FWIW moment Eslin (to whom you replied) was Banned

@Bladewing81: thanks for the thread Necromancy, interesting issue with monks and weapons. Since the Insignia of the Claws canon, being published in HOTDQ, does that not make it an official addition and thus eligible for Adventure League play?

If not, why not? (curious, I am).

Thank you for the shout-out I'm glad I revived this one since it's sort of a current issue with me since I'm playing a monk very successfully but I feel that almost every magic item my group has found that improves their attacks/damage inmensly are completely useless for me.

The insignia of shadows absolutely does help, my point in my last post is that there's only one item that helps for unarmed monks and that one item came in an adventure suplement many months after the DMG release. I know I'm not being fair... but that make me think that monks and druids that use unarmed strikes are an afterthought. the obvious fix used to be that since unarmed strikes were in the weapon table so it could be valid that the +1-3 magic weapon that stated in parentesis (any weapon) could then become magic brass knucles or gloves with +1-3, with the PHB errata that is no longer posible since unarmed strikes are no longer considered weapons.

most people are right to asume that it's not forced for monk players to use unarmed strikes, but it's the most obvious RP way to play, not to mention the funnest. For open hand monks unarmed strikes are the most important part of their attack since those are used in flurry of blows to do all sorts of tricks which help to stun lock the Mages that Malifice mentions. He is absolutely right to say that monks are the support class that helps remove the glass canons.
The same could be said for four element monk since one of the best combat tricks we have is Fangs of the fire snake that only works with unarmed strikes.

Monks have a lot of tricks its true, but most of them come into play waaaaaaaaaay later on in the mid levels 6-12. when we get to lvl 4 and improve our stats that's when we begin to shine with really good attacks (thanks mainly to unarmed strikes) and enough AC to stay alive so why couldn't Wotc help by creating more than 1 item to help on unarmed strikes?

[BladeWing81]

I just re-read my last post and I think I come across whiny and angry. not to mention really long. my apologies for that.

[BladeWing81]

I just found out something that might change the whole thread and make me give a huge apology, with the gauntlets of ogre strength and the giant belts, it seems that we can acomplish what the monk and the druid needs since druids need strength to hit it's perfect for them and for monks the martial arts trait let's us choose what to use on our attacks, either dexterity OR strength. Can anyone corroborate this? If so the options just went up substantially and I owe everyone a coke.

[Malifice]

I just found out something that might change the whole thread and make me give a huge apology, with the gauntlets of ogre strength and the giant belts, it seems that we can acomplish what the monk and the druid needs since druids need strength to hit it's perfect for them and for monks the martial arts trait let's us choose what to use on our attacks, either dexterity OR strength. Can anyone corroborate this? If so the options just went up substantially and I owe everyone a coke.

A Monk benefits from belts of giant strength as good as anyone (arguably better seeing as many monks dump Strength, so the relative gains are often better). Makes the Monk a grappling machine and vastly improves skill contests keyed off strength for initiation (like athletics).

Just dont view the Monk as a DPR machine (although even at third level youre getting 2-3 attacks most rounds, so your DPR should be comparable to a Fighter of the same level).

And your real power boost comes online at 5th level. Extra attack + Stunning fist. From that point onwards, you should be looking for the creature most dangerous to the party that is susceptible to stunning and OHM knockdowns, and be closing to engage that creature in the enemy rear lines (running past its mooks). Enemy casters are particularly vulnerable and priority targets.


Move to boss/ caster/ BBEG (use your action to dash if needed). Ignore, leap over, run around or over any front line mooks, brutes or minions (leave them for the fighter and casters to deal with)
Once adjacent to enemy caster or boss, if you havent already, use your action to attack (twice). Then use your bonus action to flurry him for two more attacks (or just flurry for two attacks if forced to use your action to dash).
Use stunning fist on your first successful attack (it'll put you at advantage to the rest of your attacks for the rest of this turn and your entire next turn, and it results in him auto failing Str and Dex saves). If you're an open hand monk, and you hit with one of your flurry attacks that stun your foe, this means that you will also automatically knock it prone too, or backwards 15' (if you want to).
Either use your remaining attacks this turn to continue to wail on him (with advantage now thanks to him being prone and stunned) or instead consider substituting one of those attacks this round or next round (he's stunned till the end of your next turn remember) for a skill contest (such as disarming him, ripping his spell focus off him, grappling him now that he's prone to reduce his movement to zero or whatever)
Continue to wail on him in following rounds, stun locking and throwing him around the battlefield like a rag doll, while disarming him of any remaining dangerous items (like spell component pouches).
Ensure you laugh in your DM's face as you do it, so he can get online after the session and complain about Monks being OP and needing to be hit with the nerf bat.

[MeeposFire]

A Monk benefits from belts of giant strength as good as anyone (arguably better seeing as many monks dump Strength, so the relative gains are often better). Makes the Monk a grappling machine and vastly improves skill contests keyed off strength for initiation (like athletics).

Just dont view the Monk as a DPR machine (although even at third level youre getting 2-3 attacks most rounds, so your DPR should be comparable to a Fighter of the same level).

And your real power boost comes online at 5th level. Extra attack + Stunning fist. From that point onwards, you should be looking for the creature most dangerous to the party that is susceptible to stunning and OHM knockdowns, and be closing to engage that creature in the enemy rear lines (running past its mooks). Enemy casters are particularly vulnerable and priority targets.


Move to boss/ caster/ BBEG (use your action to dash if needed). Ignore, leap over, run around or over any front line mooks, brutes or minions (leave them for the fighter and casters to deal with)
Once adjacent to enemy caster or boss, if you havent already, use your action to attack (twice). Then use your bonus action to flurry him for two more attacks (or just flurry for two attacks if forced to use your action to dash).
Use stunning fist on your first successful attack (it'll put you at advantage to the rest of your attacks for the rest of this turn and your entire next turn, and it results in him auto failing Str and Dex saves). If you're an open hand monk, and you hit with one of your flurry attacks that stun your foe, this means that you will also automatically knock it prone too, or backwards 15' (if you want to).
Either use your remaining attacks this turn to continue to wail on him (with advantage now thanks to him being prone and stunned) or instead consider substituting one of those attacks this round or next round (he's stunned till the end of your next turn remember) for a skill contest (such as disarming him, ripping his spell focus off him, grappling him now that he's prone to reduce his movement to zero or whatever)
Continue to wail on him in following rounds, stun locking and throwing him around the battlefield like a rag doll, while disarming him of any remaining dangerous items (like spell component pouches).
Ensure you laugh in your DM's face as you do it, so he can get online after the session and complain about Monks being OP and needing to be hit with the nerf bat.



A class does not gain more from having using the belt just because they have a lesser str score unless they were going to use a str based attack before. Monks will have the same boost because both the fighter and the monk will both try to max out an attack stat. A 20 str does just as damage as a 20 dex for the monk and thusly since the fighter is also lilely going to have a 20 in his attack stat in the end they get the same level of benefit from the belt. A 20 dex 10 str monk has +5 to damage but when he gains teh belt to 29 str str he does not gain +9 to his str mon in damage he really only ends up with a bonus of +4 over what he originally gets from his dex score which is the same amount the fighter gets.


Now that is on a per attack basis in actuality different classes get different levels of benefit independent of the amount of benefit per attack. Fighters always at highest level will get the bonus 4-5 times. A monk will get it 3-4 times. So in effect generally the fighter gets more benefit than the monk still (though the monk still gets a lot of benefits from it). OF course this can be partially made up by the much greater gain in athletics checks which can be sueful in things like pushing but in terms of straight damage fighter still probably out gains in terms of benefit from a belt.


A good way to show this is with the example a lot of people tend to sue when trying to argue against the current model of str boosting items which is the wizard. There are some which will say that the wizard gains more of a benefit from the belt than the fighter. The str 10 wizard gets +9 to damage which is huge while the fighter nets only a +4 due to his innately higher str. Of course since the fighter attacks 4-5 times the fighter gets that bonus many times giving him +16-20 damage which means he surpasses the benefit to the wizard (who also has many other reasons to not use the item).

[Malifice]

A class does not gain more from having using the belt just because they have a lesser str score unless they were going to use a str based attack before. Monks will have the same boost because both the fighter and the monk will both try to max out an attack stat.

Most monks dump Str and max Dex (they can use either to hit with martial arts).

Ergo a belt helps the Dex based monks better (particularly when you consider point buy - the 27 ability score points are now spread between 5 ability scores instead of 6 seeing as they dumped Str).

They now have a Dex of 16+ and a Strength of 19+ and can choose to use either.[/QUOTE]

[MeeposFire]

Most monks dump Str and max Dex (they can use either to hit with martial arts).

Ergo a belt helps the Dex based monks better (particularly when you consider point buy - the 27 ability score points are now spread between 5 ability scores instead of 6 seeing as they dumped Str).

They now have a Dex of 16+ and a Strength of 19+ and can choose to use either.[/QUOTE]

Yes but that does not help them more than the fighter. The monk is still going to max dex for attack, damage, AC, and dex save. This means the monk is still only getting a net +4 benefit to his attacks and damage because the 20 dex gave a +5 to start.

As that a belt of str of that magnitude is a very high level item I don't think starting point buy really matters at all unless you are starting off the game knowing you are going to get that exact item by the time you need it which is a corner case to be sure.

Generally speaking monks typically already mostly dump str. Granted they may dump cha/int more but it probably will not get any points either probably just enough to have no penalty.


The fighter is getting the same level of boost but at the level you probably would receive this item would likely get more benefit out of it due to having more attacks per round. I will say though that the earlier in the game you go the more the monk benefits compared to the fighter and even in the late game the monk gets almost the same level of benefit as the fighter does so it is not a big difference.

[Malifice]

Yes but that does not help them more than the fighter. The monk is still going to max dex for attack, damage, AC, and dex save. This means the monk is still only getting a net +4 benefit to his attacks and damage because the 20 dex gave a +5 to start.

Yes it does. Your average Monk maxes Dex, Wisdom and Con in that order and dumps strength, int and charisma.

Your average polearm or greatsword fighter (archers and dex fighters are the exception) maxes Str, Con and Dex and dumps the other three.

Human Fighter (Polarm master) using standard array/ 27 points:
S 15 (16)
D 14
C 13(14)
I 8
W 12
Ch 10

Human Monk (Mobile) doing the same:
S 10
D 15(16)
C 13(14)
I 8
W 14
Ch 12

Even giving the bracers at 1st level provides marginal benefit to the Fighter. It provides the same boost to the Monk in terms of hit and damage, but a massive benefit to the Monk in terms of overall ability mods and checks in combat and str saves and skills.

It gets worse at higher levels. Lets say at (say) 8th level they find a belt of Strength (23). By this stage the Fighter has spent three ASI's - the Monk has spent two. The Fighter picked up an extra feat at 4th (Great weapon master) and pumps Str (twice). The Monk just pumps Dex twice. Most likely stats now are:

Fighter
S 20
D 14
C 14
I 8
W 12
Ch 10

Monk:
S 10
D 20
C 14
I 8
W 14
Ch 12

By this stage the Fighter gains only a marginal increase in power from wearing a belt of 23 strength. The Monk OTOH now has both a Str AND Dex in the 20's and leaps from a bonus of +0 in strength to a +6. While this only translates into a +1 to hit and damage extra for both classes, it provides a massive boost to the Monks athletics checks (for pushing and shoving and grappling) and strength saves. The Monk also benefits from (overall) much higher ability mods as he is replacing a dump stat with a super stat (+10 in total for the fighter - +15 in total for the Monk) instead of a god stat with a slightly more god stat.


As that a belt of str of that magnitude is a very high level item I don't think starting point buy really matters at all unless you are starting off the game knowing you are going to get that exact item by the time you need it which is a corner case to be sure.

Actually leveling up makes it worse. Most Monks devote ASI's to Dex (first) then Wisdom second. Unless you're a Dex based fighter, its strength all the way.

[MeeposFire]

I have already stated that they do get better str saves and athletics checks but that is a nice bonus but not that big of a deal. For str saves half of the monks want to use a wisdom save on flurry of blows to knock enemies down and the other half have to consider losing out on damage to use this option. Saves are also nice but monk mobility helps offset the problem especially if you take mobile feat whereas the fighter if he does fail this save can be put out of position and have a hard time getting back (and so may want the small bonus more since he cannot move back as effectively as a monk can or avoid the danger in the first place).

You keep talking about starting stats but they are mostly irrelevant. This item is NOT a low level item where it would affect your stats when your array matters the most and more often you do not know you are getting this item so building your character expecting to get it is very suspect. Offensively the most benefit goes to the one who makes the most attacks. Earlier in the game it is the monk but eventually the fighter surpasses the monk in that department which means the total bonus to attack and damage actually favors the fighter and that is when you are likely to find a belt of giant strength.


You can look at it as a defensive/utility versus offensive choice between choosing who gets the item which may be a valid way to look at it though I tend to find that offense tends to be more fun/effective in many games.

Lastly leveling up does not make it worse because leveling is the way fighters pull ahead on attacks and thus net more bonus from the higher str over the monk.

[Malifice]

I have already stated that they do get better str saves and athletics checks but that is a nice bonus but not that big of a deal. For str saves half of the monks want to use a wisdom save on flurry of blows to knock enemies down and the other half have to consider losing out on damage to use this option. Saves are also nice but monk mobility helps offset the problem especially if you take mobile feat whereas the fighter if he does fail this save can be put out of position and have a hard time getting back (and so may want the small bonus more since he cannot move back as effectively as a monk can or avoid the danger in the first place).

You keep talking about starting stats but they are mostly irrelevant. This item is NOT a low level item where it would affect your stats when your array matters the most and more often you do not know you are getting this item so building your character expecting to get it is very suspect. Offensively the most benefit goes to the one who makes the most attacks. Earlier in the game it is the monk but eventually the fighter surpasses the monk in that department which means the total bonus to attack and damage actually favors the fighter and that is when you are likely to find a belt of giant strength.


You can look at it as a defensive/utility versus offensive choice between choosing who gets the item which may be a valid way to look at it though I tend to find that offense tends to be more fun/effective in many games.

Lastly leveling up does not make it worse because leveling is the way fighters pull ahead on attacks and thus net more bonus from the higher str over the monk.

The fighter only surpasss the monk for Number of attacks at 20th level and even then the monk can match it with flurry. Also - as the monk levels he pumps DEX and then WIS and then CON. The average fighter pumps strength then con and then Dex. The gap grows as you level.

If you consider a jump of plus six to an ability score bonus not really worth that much then were never going to agree.

[SharkForce]

actually, i think one of the biggest benefits for strength items on the monk is the jump distance. monks normally use their huge increase to jump distance to jump about as well as a fighter. give them 19 strength, and suddenly they're crazy good at jumping, which can really help with mobility when it suddenly means you can clear 15 foot tall enemies with ease :P

but yeah, the main reason it might be argued to benefit a monk more is that monks are so MAD that if they get their hands on a strength-boosting item early, they can leave dex to focus on wisdom (still gives AC, but they no longer need the to-hit from dex and can instead focus on wisdom for save DC... though you still probably eventually want dex at some point).

[BladeWing81]

actually, i think one of the biggest benefits for strength items on the monk is the jump distance. monks normally use their huge increase to jump distance to jump about as well as a fighter. give them 19 strength, and suddenly they're crazy good at jumping, which can really help with mobility when it suddenly means you can clear 15 foot tall enemies with ease :P

but yeah, the main reason it might be argued to benefit a monk more is that monks are so MAD that if they get their hands on a strength-boosting item early, they can leave dex to focus on wisdom (still gives AC, but they no longer need the to-hit from dex and can instead focus on wisdom for save DC... though you still probably eventually want dex at some point).

You are absolutely right, the thread was about having little option for Monk and druids to boost unarmed strikes so with the gauntlets and the belts I think we can now say that there are magical options.
lets ignore the belts for one second and focus on the gauntlets of ogre strenght since they are uncomon and could be given out in the first 4 levels. that's 19 str! right now my stast as a dragonborn monk at lvl 5 are as follows:
Str 10
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 16
Cha 9
Nothing very powerful but still good build so far. My unarmed strikes are +6 hit / 1d6 +3 Damage and up to 4 attacks with flurry of blows also very good AC with dex and Wis.
If I add the guantlets (I like the gauntlet becuase they would look cool on a monk) my stats change to this
Str 19
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 16
Cha 9
It changes a lot becuase now my strikes are +7 hit / 1d6 +4 Damage but also Monk has proeficiency on Str saving throws which now are up to +7 better athletics and now I'm a great grapler and can concentrate on improving my Wisdom to improve AC and DC checks for my stuns and elemental spells. it makes me a much better fighter but and even better support as an antimage Character.:smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

You are absolutely right, the thread was about having little option for Monk and druids to boost unarmed strikes so with the gauntlets and the belts I think we can now say that there are magical options.
lets ignore the belts for one second and focus on the gauntlets of ogre strenght since they are uncomon and could be given out in the first 4 levels. that's 19 str! right now my stast as a dragonborn monk at lvl 5 are as follows:
Str 10
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 16
Cha 9
Nothing very powerful but still good build so far. My unarmed strikes are +6 hit / 1d6 +3 Damage and up to 4 attacks with flurry of blows also very good AC with dex and Wis.
If I add the guantlets (I like the gauntlet becuase they would look cool on a monk) my stats change to this
Str 19
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 16
Cha 9
It changes a lot becuase now my strikes are +7 hit / 1d6 +4 Damage but also Monk has proeficiency on Str saving throws which now are up to +7 better athletics and now I'm a great grapler and can concentrate on improving my Wisdom to improve AC and DC checks for my stuns and elemental spells. it makes me a much better fighter but and even better support as an antimage Character.:smallbiggrin:

Spot on. Monks are amazing mage hunters.


Dont forget to (after stunning the bearded fool) rip his spell focus and component pouch off him.

[BladeWing81]

Spot on. Monks are amazing mage hunters.


Dont forget to (after stunning the bearded fool) rip his spell focus and component pouch off him.

Would that work on warriors if I stun them and take their weapons? :smalleek:

[SharkForce]

Would that work on warriors if I stun them and take their weapons? :smalleek:

if you can get them to fail the con save, yes. generally that's not as likely to happen to an NPC warrior as it is to happen to an NPC mage, priest, archer, etc though.

[Malifice]

Would that work on warriors if I stun them and take their weapons? :smalleek:

Yep.

If for some reason your DM is a jerk and doesnt allow improvised actions or disarming via skill checks (the DMG has rules for it) then I highly suggest a dip into Battlemaster fighter (3 levels) for action surge, 4 dice and manouvers (disarming strike, menacing attack and pushing strike).

It'll up your DPR (and tankiness) considerably, and give you a whole suite of options to use instead of (or in addition to) stunning fist, Open hand shoves and reaction shut downs and skill challenges.

You get to move 50' to the enemy mage or carefully statted up BBEG (jumping over anyone in your way or running up walls), use your action to punch him twice (each hit stunning him, if stunned, automatically disarming him and scaring him witless - while doing a ton of damage) and then bonus action to flurry him and attack him twice more (at advantage because he's prone, stunned, and disarmed) throwing him around the place. As he's stunned he'll auto fail any str or dex saves to avoid getting disarmed, or thown all over the place. Then use your 'free object interaction' to pick up his dropped weapon... and then action surge to belt him twice more while he's lying on the ground unarmed, stunned, frightened and prone.

Cackle evilly as your DM cries.

[BladeWing81]

Yep.

If for some reason your DM is a jerk and doesnt allow improvised actions or disarming via skill checks (the DMG has rules for it) then I highly suggest a dip into Battlemaster fighter (3 levels) for action surge, 4 dice and manouvers (disarming strike, menacing attack and pushing strike).

It'll up your DPR (and tankiness) considerably, and give you a whole suite of options to use instead of (or in addition to) stunning fist, Open hand shoves and reaction shut downs and skill challenges.

You get to move 50' to the enemy mage or carefully statted up BBEG (jumping over anyone in your way or running up walls), use your action to punch him twice (each hit stunning him, if stunned, automatically disarming him and scaring him witless - while doing a ton of damage) and then bonus action to flurry him and attack him twice more (at advantage because he's prone, stunned, and disarmed) throwing him around the place. As he's stunned he'll auto fail any str or dex saves to avoid getting disarmed, or thown all over the place. Then use your 'free object interaction' to pick up his dropped weapon... and then action surge to belt him twice more while he's lying on the ground unarmed, stunned, frightened and prone.

Cackle evilly as your DM cries.

It would make sense to take away their weapons if stunned and automatically fail dex and str checks. if I'm lucky it might even work on boss warriors (they get extra cons ususally) that have a magic weapon or shield, throw it away from him and make him give up or else get a taste of a little lightning breath. Which would sometimes yield some extra XP when you bring back the evil boss alive (forgive the metagaming).

[Malifice]

It would make sense to take away their weapons if stunned and automatically fail dex and str checks.

They auto-fail Str and Dex saves, not ability checks. Although seeing as they cant take actions, it's not a stretch to say they also auto fail any opposed strength or dex checks they need to make too.

Not that the distinction really matters, OHM and BM special moves (manouvers and OHM strikes) all target Str and Dex saves.

Stun them and then proceed to automatically toss them around, knock them down, disarm them, or whatever.


if I'm lucky it might even work on boss warriors (they get extra cons ususally) that have a magic weapon or shield, throw it away from him and make him give up or else get a taste of a little lightning breath. Which would sometimes yield some extra XP when you bring back the evil boss alive (forgive the metagaming).

You get 4 chances to stun them each round usually (two attacks plus flurry) - Ki pool is your only limit. Even with great Con saves, they should fail at least one. Then layer on the (auto fail) disarming, knocking prone, frightening, and tossing around action.

[BladeWing81]

They auto-fail Str and Dex saves, not ability checks. Although seeing as they cant take actions, it's not a stretch to say they also auto fail any opposed strength or dex checks they need to make too.

Not that the distinction really matters, OHM and BM special moves (manouvers and OHM strikes) all target Str and Dex saves.

Stun them and then proceed to automatically toss them around, knock them down, disarm them, or whatever.



You get 4 chances to stun them each round usually (two attacks plus flurry) - Ki pool is your only limit. Even with great Con saves, they should fail at least one. Then layer on the (auto fail) disarming, knocking prone, frightening, and tossing around action.

I've been in that sittuation at lvl 5 and you actually only have two chances if you hit with the first 2 attacks but fail the stun on both it's better to use your bonus action to use a ki point and activate dodge and try again next turn, they are bosses after all.:smallsmile:
Fun as it it to talk about this I think we have an answer to the original thread:
there are about 7 magic items that boost unarmed attacks:
1) Gauntlets of Ogre strength 19 STR
2-6)Belt of Giant Strength (hill, stone/frost,fire,Cloud and storm) 21,23,25,27,29 Str
7) Insignia of Claws +1 hit/dmg magic damage
granted a lot of them aren't that Flashy like other magic items BUT! you can't deny the utility you can get from them.

[Malifice]

I've been in that sittuation at lvl 5 and you actually only have two chances if you hit with the first 2 attacks but fail the stun on both it's better to use your bonus action to use a ki point and activate dodge and try again next turn, they are bosses after all.:smallsmile:

Personally I would carry on with the attacks and stun attempts.

Each to their own.

[BladeWing81]

Personally I would carry on with the attacks and stun attempts.

Each to their own.

So did I, until I got hit with a 25 damage attack. that fixed me up real good :smalleek:
Welp! I think we can say that there are unarmed boosting items, enough to say it is viable to be a monk or a druid that only use unarmed strikes.
meeting adjourned
"people murmuring and Shaking hands, leaving meeting hall."

[KorvinStarmast]

meeting adjourned
"people murmuring and Shaking hands, leaving meeting hall."

People heading out the door, heading to happy hour where the cocktails are half price ...