Kensei Monk ability clarifications

[miburo]

I've been watching the newest season of Samurai Jack and was thinking how the Kensai monk perfectly fits that archetype (unarmored katana + bow wielding badass). Looking at the revised version from here (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf) I have a couple of questions:

- With the melee Path of the Kensei ability, am I understanding correctly that you have to make an unarmed attack as part of the attacka ction in order to gain the +2 bonus? Meaning that at level 3 if I'm wielding a longsword I have to use my piddly 1d4 damage die, and at level 5 I have to use one of my attacks with the 1d6 damage die in order to gain that +2 AC bonus? That seems like a subpar trade-off, particularly since the ranged ability is a straight boost (assuming you don't really use that bonus action at range anyways). It also doesn't seem to work well with later Kensei abilities like Precise Strike and Sharpen the Blade.
- If I have a magic weapon (say a +1 longsword) does the bonus from Sharpen The Blade stack with the magic weapon, or replace it? RAW it appears to stack, but wanted to clarify.

[lunaticfringe]

It's because the Kensai is a dumb**** archetype I would just allow you to use a frakking Longsword. Seriously just ask your dm. If she/he/it/they get their undies in a twist offer to burn a feat for it. But...

Yeah it is a terrible option till your MA damage hits d8 & d10

Yes RAW it would seem to stack.

[Arelai]

You trade on average a 1-3 damage on 1 attack, for the +2ac that lasts for an entire round. Y'all are stupid if you think that's a bad trade. I would just always hit unarmed and take the AC boost.

Don't like the flavor? Just say you attack with the weapon, and roll the lower die.

[Lombra]

Trading a couple damage for extra AC is really good. You can decide to effectively be wielding a shield. Not to mention that you can also not use it and still use the weapon.

[miburo]

You trade on average a 1-3 damage on 1 attack, for the +2ac that lasts for an entire round. Y'all are stupid if you think that's a bad trade. I would just always hit unarmed and take the AC boost.

Don't like the flavor? Just say you attack with the weapon, and roll the lower die.

Call me stupid if you like, but it seems like really poor design to give your character a shiny toy (kensei weapon) and then immediately say you can't take advantage of that shiny toy if you want to use this other feature. Especially since the ranged kensei feature is a straight up damage boost, no real strings attached.

Given that monks can't really use shields, it doesn't seem to be overpowered if the wording was instead changed to "when you use the attack action with your kensei weapon, you gain a +2 AC bonus for that round." That would encourage you to get into the thick of combat. If a +2 AC bonus is too overpowered, make it +1 instead.

[Easy_Lee]

You aren't giving up using the Kensei weapon. You're giving up one attack. That means you can still attack with the Kensei weapon too starting at level 5. Furthermore, the Kensei eventually gets to +3 his own weapon for 3 ki, and it lasts a full minute. That's really good.

Kensei is easily the best monk archetype for pure damage until 17. As I'm told that damage is important and +2 AC is actually pretty useful in the first two tiers of play, I don't know what you're complaining about.

[GlenSmash!]

I would just always hit unarmed and take the AC boost.

This here is my problem with the sub-class as designed. A Kensei is a Sword Saint. His whole schtick is his bond with is weapon, but they give this big incentive to attack with an unarmed strike rather than the Kensei weapon.

I'm not saying it's not powerful. I'm not saying the Kensei is not using his weapon, it's obvious he is using it for defense in this case. I am saying that the ability doesn't fit my vision of how the Sword Saint should play.

I would honestly rather it take a reaction to assume a defensive stance and get the +2 to AC and let the sword saint make whatever attacks it wants (or potentially not attack at all and Dodge) even if that is a worse trade off than having to make one unarmed strike.

[8wGremlin]

I had a DM once that allowed me to create a monk and take the hermit background.
They allowed my discovery to be that I could use a 'glaive' as a monk weapon.

It was like the forming of a new martial art style, a secret that people would want me to teach them, and a secret that people would want to kill me for. I had all my martial arts notes written down and had to protect them with my life.

Pity it only lasted a short time.

[miburo]

This here is my problem with the sub-class as designed. A Kensei is a Sword Saint. His whole schtick is his bond with is weapon, but they give this big incentive to attack with an unarmed strike rather than the Kensei weapon.

I'm not saying it's not powerful. I'm not saying the Kensei is not using his weapon, it's obvious he is using it for defense in this case. I am saying that the ability doesn't fit my vision of how the Sword Saint should play.

I would honestly rather it take a reaction to assume a defensive stance and get the +2 to AC and let the sword saint make whatever attacks it wants (or potentially not attack at all and Dodge) even if that is a worse trade off than having to make one unarmed strike.

Agreed, this is my big issue. Why would a sword saint spend their time defending with the weapon while attacking unarmed? It just doesn't make much sense.

I really like the idea of expending your reaction to get the +2 AC. It's a more acceptable trade-off, and you can easily imagine a serenely calm weapon master standing in one place and parrying a bunch of attacks.

[mephnick]

Agreed, this is my big issue. Why would a sword saint spend their time defending with the weapon while attacking unarmed? It just doesn't make much sense.


You still attack with the weapon once you get Extra Attack.

1 weapon attack + a kick + 2AC for the turn + whatever bonus action you want.

[Arelai]

I like how the guy who quoted me didn't acknowledge that I said you could just call it a weapon attack with your cool sword and it literally changes nothing except you use a d4 at early levels instead of a d8. You lose 2 points of damage on average.

You're playing pretend-just pretend a little more. Or choose a dagger as your kensei weapon and then you lose absolutely nothing mechanically.

[Easy_Lee]

Agreed, this is my big issue. Why would a sword saint spend their time defending with the weapon while attacking unarmed? It just doesn't make much sense.

I really like the idea of expending your reaction to get the +2 AC. It's a more acceptable trade-off, and you can easily imagine a serenely calm weapon master standing in one place and parrying a bunch of attacks.

I don't normally say this, but this is badwrong. Let me explain why.

Let's say I pick up defensive duelist as a feat. Great. I can use my reaction to add some AC, but only in response to one attack that hits me. That's a limited effect. Same thing with the battle master parry, which reduces damage of one attack as a reaction as costs a resource. So that's also limited.

Let's consider the Shield spell. +5 AC until your next turn? Very nice. But you spent a spell slot to do it.

Now you want +2 AC on a reaction? Just straight +2 AC? That's better than defensive duelist or parry because it works against multiple attacks. And it's better than the Shield spell because it doesn't cost a spell slot.

The trade off for using a two handed weapon, or playing a monk for that matter, is normally not being able to use a shield. This feature lets you turn your weapon into a shield, but you can still make one attack or reaction attack with your weapon. You'll deal maybe 2.5 less damage, if that. And only on rounds when you want to defend with your weapon.

And you're complaining about that?

You asked why someone with a weapon would defend with that weapon. I think that's a dumb question. Fighting is all about attacking and defending at the same time. Boxers can't throw haymakers without opening themselves up. I don't know why you think monks should be able to defend and attack with their weapons at the same time. Which they actually still can, just with one fewer weapon attack but with just as many total attacks.

So again, I don't see what you're complaining about. Something in 5e didn't look exactly the way you would have designed it? Join the crowd. None of us got exactly what we wanted. But this feature is not bad at all.

[GlenSmash!]

Something in 5e didn't look exactly the way you would have designed it? Join the crowd. None of us got exactly what we wanted. But this feature is not bad at all.

But this isn't "Something in 5e" it's something in UA which means it's play-test material. It is designed to generate feedback. You may not like that feedback. That's perfectly fine, but those of us that don't like the ability as presented aren't wrong for doing so.

Also, please don't take my of the the cuff suggestion of +2 AC as a reaction as anything close a well thought out game mechanic. It wasn't. It was never meant to be such.

[Zalabim]

Call me stupid if you like, but it seems like really poor design to give your character a shiny toy (kensei weapon) and then immediately say you can't take advantage of that shiny toy if you want to use this other feature. Especially since the ranged kensei feature is a straight up damage boost, no real strings attached.

The monk is full of those features though. The rogue is built on those features. Here's Ki. You can spend Ki and a bonus action to: Dash/Disengage, Dodge, or make two unarmed strikes after you attack. You can also spend that bonus action on martial arts, or if you were Way of the Shadow, on Shadow Step. You may as well ask why you don't get to use patient defense, step of the wind, martial arts, and flurry all at the same time.

The strings attached when you use the ranged weapon feature are that you're dealing less damage than using Martial Arts or Flurry and you can't use Stunning Strikes with your ranged attacks.