I have a dilemma: Deft Strike and how it might be stronger than what i think it is.

[ThePolarBear]

For reference: Deft strike, p 35 Xanathar's.

Is there ANY reason for the damage increase to be a one-time only thing as i thought before having this completely random thought? "You hit something, your weapon deals extra damage to that thing" is essentially a summary of the ability. It doesn't say "for this attack" in any way, shape or form. Only that you can use "Deft Strike" once each turn, but all Deft Strike does is to allow spending a Ki point to increase the damage that the weapon itself deals on a particular target. If the weapon doesn't change, if the target doesn't change... why would the damage increase go away?

Is it me getting something seriously wrong or a "every time i strike you (with a limit of once per turn omitted due to poetics :D), my blade cuts deeper" is possible reading?

[Varlon]

Yeah you're totally off. It applies to one hit per turn, it doesn't actually increase your weapon's damage die.

[Cikomyr]

Deft Strike. When you hit a target with a kensei weapon, you can spend 1 ki point to cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target equal to your Martial Arts die. You can use this feature only once on each of your turns.

The wording "when you hit" and "use once per turn" is, in my opinion, RAW clincher as to why it wouldn't apply to the entire weapon damage.

[TheUser]

For reference: Deft strike, p 35 Xanathar's.

Is there ANY reason for the damage increase to be a one-time only thing as i thought before having this completely random thought? "You hit something, your weapon deals extra damage to that thing" is essentially a summary of the ability. It doesn't say "for this attack" in any way, shape or form. Only that you can use "Deft Strike" once each turn, but all Deft Strike does is to allow spending a Ki point to increase the damage that the weapon itself deals on a particular target. If the weapon doesn't change, if the target doesn't change... why would the damage increase go away?

Is it me getting something seriously wrong or a "every time i strike you (with a limit of once per turn omitted due to poetics :D), my blade cuts deeper" is possible reading?

I just finished reading the ability to see if you missed anything and uhh...this is one of those RAW foibles like Wall of Fire for 10d8 or the Magic Jar Necromancer.

RAW you appear to be 100% right, but it is very likely not the intent of the ability.

I'd throw JC a tweet, see what he says maybe?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I want to say that it's probably intended to be sort of like an instantaneous effect, spending the ki point immediately lets you roll a martial arts die and add that to your kensei weapon damage.

For reference, most Maneuvers for Battle Master also share the wording, we'll use Disarming Strike as the example:

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack [When you hit a target with a kensei weapon], you can expend one superiority die [you can spend 1 ki point] to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding [to cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target equal to your Martial Arts die.]. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet.

But you're absolutely correct, all of the maneuvers have something along the lines of "the next attack" or "until the start of your next turn" or are, in the case of disarming strike, something that resolves with a clear end point (you cannot disarm a target with no items in hand)

Deft Strike just says "cause the weapon to deal extra damage" and I can't for the life of me figure out why they didn't say "cause the attack to deal extra damage" because I'm fairly certain they don't intend for the benefit to be permanent.

Another minor nitpick (although this might just be me picking at straws) but doesn't the wording "equal to your martial arts die" seem strange? Is it just a separate roll of your martial arts die (this is my assumption)? Is it the size of the die? Do you add the value rolled as part of the attack that was just made (since your Kensei Weapon uses your Martial Arts die), effectively making it a pseudo crit? If it's the third example, what happens if your weapons damage die is larger than your Martial Arts die?

Kensei is weird.

[ThePolarBear]

Yeah you're totally off. It applies to one hit per turn, it doesn't actually increase your weapon's damage die.

The reason for your conclusion being? Notice, i think it might be intended to be like that. I used to think that it was like that. Telling me that it is like that but not giving any measure of "why" doesn't really help me making up my mind right now.

Why would it be once?


The wording "when you hit" and "use once per turn" is, in my opinion, RAW clincher as to why it wouldn't apply to the entire weapon damage.

"When you hit" is really nothing more than a clause limiting when an ability can be used. "On your turn" for Extra Attack does the same, limiting the ability to "activate" it on your turn only. It clearly doesn't limit it to once per turn, just as it doesn't limit the duration of the effect of Deft Strike (in other words, it doesn't answer the question "how long does this extra damage last")

"Use once per turn" is a limit on how often i can use Deft Strike, true.
It clearly limits my ability to oneshot one creature with Deft Strike and then make a second attack with the same Attack Action against a different target, hit again and increase the damage of that attack, too.

But Deft Strike isn't really worded like "Fury of the Small", for example, that deals extra damage to a target of a particular attack or a particular spell. It affects a weapon, not a particular attack. The weapon deals extra damage to the target, the weapon gains a bonus. It can't gain the bonus again, but if the bonus isn't over... why should it lose it? It isn't as clear as Elemental Weapon for sure ("For the duration [...] it [the weapon] deals 1d4 extra damage [...] when it hits) but it still affects the weapon in the same way.

However this made me think that AT THE VERY LEAST it would not be really possible to continuously stack the damage and it would be limited to one additional die since the same feature doesn't really stack with itself anyway. But it doesn't solve the issue of "does this last until... when?"
I agree i can't use Deft Strikes again. It is Deft Strikes that increases the damage. But the increase in damage doesn't seem to be limited in time or use.


I just finished reading the ability to see if you missed anything and uhh...this is one of those RAW foibles like Wall of Fire for 10d8 or the Magic Jar Necromancer.

RAW you appear to be 100% right, but it is very likely not the intent of the ability.

I'd throw JC a tweet, see what he says maybe?

It would be lovely, thanks for the offer. But i think he is on vacation right now so the question might end up being buried.
Furthermore this thread already made me think that you could really not stack "Deft Strike" anyway, so even if it might end up different from what it was in my mind originally i have a reason why it can't be "bonkers" that at least settles it for me.

edit:



But you're absolutely correct, all of the maneuvers have something along the lines of "the next attack" or "until the start of your next turn" or are, in the case of disarming strike, something that resolves with a clear end point (you cannot disarm a target with no items in hand)

Deft Strike just says "cause the weapon to deal extra damage" and I can't for the life of me figure out why they didn't say "cause the attack to deal extra damage" because I'm fairly certain they don't intend for the benefit to be permanent.

The exact same problem i'm having, once remembered you can't really stack the same effect over and over.


Another minor nitpick (although this might just be me picking at straws) but doesn't the wording "equal to your martial arts die" seem strange?

Not really, at least not to me. It isn't really different from seeing a "1d4" as it is in Elemental Weapon. It's just variable.


Do you add the value rolled as part of the attack that was just made (since your Kensei Weapon uses your Martial Arts die), effectively making it a pseudo crit?

I read it as: the weapon itself now deals Weapon damage die + Martial arts die instead of the general rule. If you have some ability that lets you reroll the weapon damage die, the exception is your norm. Sort of like the ruling that i remember reading for Flametongue weapons (the magical damage was the damage of the weapon (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/988279492698296321)) (usual caveats about tweets...)


Kensei is weird.

And interesting, from at least certain points of view! :D

----

Edit 230156195719th

I just noticed i didn't say the most important thing: Thank you all for helping :D

[TheUser]

In all honesty if we use the 'stacking the same effect' rule and limit it to a permanent damage bonus against a particular enemy but no more than one bonus then the ability seems perfectly fine. Spend a Ki once and add monk weapon damage to your weapon attacks against that target forever. Can ramp up new targets once per turn.

[Cikomyr]

In all honesty if we use the 'stacking the same effect' rule and limit it to a permanent damage bonus against a particular enemy but no more than one bonus then the ability seems perfectly fine. Spend a Ki once and add monk weapon damage to your weapon attacks against that target forever. Can ramp up new targets once per turn.

Kind of a single target Divine Fervor?

Seems like pretty OP... Or not? Actually, how good is it actually?

[Misterwhisper]

The ability literally says:

When you hit a target with a kensei weapon, you can spend 1 ki point to cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target equal to your Martial Arts die. You can use this feature only once on each of your turns.


And yet somehow you want to interpret it as meaning you can both spend multiple ki and/or using it more than once.

This is just ridiculous loose reading to try and powergame.

[djreynolds]

Right, if you want to powergame then play a paladin and smite on every hit

Its not actually a bad power, and with the new UA stuff, you could squeeze in a free bonus action attack with Ki-fueled strike

[Lunali]

The ability literally says:

When you hit a target with a kensei weapon, you can spend 1 ki point to cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target equal to your Martial Arts die. You can use this feature only once on each of your turns.


And yet somehow you want to interpret it as meaning you can both spend multiple ki and/or using it more than once.

This is just ridiculous loose reading to try and powergame.

The argument (which I don't really buy) is that you can spend the 1 ki point once per turn to increase the damage dealt with that weapon to that target for that attack and all subsequent attacks. From a strict reading it could be considered RAW, but certainly not RAI and you wouldn't be likely to convince your DM to agree to it.

[ThePolarBear]

Kind of a single target Divine Fervor?

Seems like pretty OP... Or not? Actually, how good is it actually?

I don't really know. It would be a bit better than Hex and Hunter's Mark i guess by virtue of not having concentration and not requiring actions. It is however limited to kensei weapons and each weapon would need its own activation to gain the bonus. Furthermore it would require an expenditure of Ki for every single target and still be limited to once per turn. It would gain more uses and more damage the higher the level the monk is. That's what i can see right now.



And yet somehow you want to interpret it as meaning you can both spend multiple ki and/or using it more than once.

I thought it was obvious that the expenditure was meant to be over the course of different turns. And i don't "want" to. I'm just doing it and asking what am i missing.


Right, if you want to powergame then play a paladin and smite on every hit

I wasn't really thinking about implications of multiclassing. Or even balance at all. It was really just about how i thought it worked and what am i missing it now that i read it again and found out that what i thought was there really really wasn't. An "in the void" kind of thought.

It might get really bad, i bet.


Its not actually a bad power, and with the new UA stuff, you could squeeze in a free bonus action attack with Ki-fueled strike

I don't really like the theme or the features of Monks in general. I don't think i'm really impartial when dealing with them. But even without the UA you could strike with the weapon, spend a ki, strike with an unarmed attack, get +2 AC, spend one ki, make 2 unarmed attacks as a bonus action.

From a "balance" point of view... The above ends up, assuming everything hits, with 4 MA dice, 1 weapon die, 4 stat, 1 extra weapon bonus (things like flametongue or (+x)s) and +2 AC for 1 less ki for every round other than the first on the same target. If the Kensei were to choose to strike with only the blade, they would end up with 4 MA dice, 2 weapon dice, 4 stat, 2 extra. Without using Flurry there's would be no unarmed attacks in the second case but there would be one in the first. And out of turn AoOs or other weapon attacks might end up adding extra damage to different targets with an overall less expenditure of Ki.

With Ki-fueled strikes there would be 3 weapon dice + 3 MA + 3 stat + 3 extra. If i think the previous amount could be "fine" for a difference of 2 in the AC, i don't think this last one would really be (even if it wouldn't be the end of the world, it very well might be strictly better than a fighter, expecially after 11. I don't know.). But i'm used to a lower-end magic item availlability setting, so my thought might be a bit off in that department.

And it would apply to ranged weapons, too, where there would already be no particular unarmed strike from a "base" monk or even a "Kensei" monk. Ranged might really be where it would go really "deeply" overboard.


but certainly not RAI and you wouldn't be likely to convince your DM to agree to it.

Do you have some source that could help shedding light on RAI? (I know, twitter is not official yadda yadda, but it would help me knowing anyway). TheUser offered to ask, but it's a holyday season so i don't think there will be an answer soon. I tried looking, but came up with nothing. It sounds off to me, too. That's why the doubt. I can't find "where" is it off in the text. If someone were to ask me, i would be torn in saying "no" as is right now. I wouldn't feel "right", but it would feel "wrong" to say no, too.

[stoutstien]

This does give me an idea for a monk subclass who's focused on multiple strikes against one target with stacking effect.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Is there ANY reason for the damage increase to be a one-time only thing as i thought before having this completely random thought?

Yes, a sensible contextual reading.


Is it me getting something seriously wrong or a "every time i strike you (with a limit of once per turn omitted due to poetics :D), my blade cuts deeper" is possible reading?

What was the question, "Is this how we're supposed to read it" or "Is this a completely impossible way of reading it"? Asking the second question and getting a no doesn't mean you get a yes on the first.

[Cikomyr]

This does give me an idea for a monk subclass who's focused on multiple strikes against one target with stacking effect.

"Stunning Improvement : The Save DC of your Stunning Strike increases by 2 for every prior connecting hit to the same target during your turn, not counting the hit used to Stun strike"

"Stunning Critical : your opponent has disadvantage on their saving throw against Stunning Strike if the Stun was delivered via a critical hit"

[Frozenstep]

This does give me an idea for a monk subclass who's focused on multiple strikes against one target with stacking effect.

So basically a monk that suffers more then other classes the higher AC a target is, who suffers more if they aren't given a magic weapon with + to hit, who suffers more if they take a feat with one of their ASI's instead of maxing dexterity, a monk who more then anyone else wants advantage and will suffer in parties that don't often put them in the position to attack with advantage?

In flavor it's a cool idea, but in practice I could see it being a bit frustrating to play unless you set things up with a party to enable you.

[stoutstien]

So basically a monk that suffers more then other classes the higher AC a target is, who suffers more if they aren't given a magic weapon with + to hit, who suffers more if they take a feat with one of their ASI's instead of maxing dexterity, a monk who more then anyone else wants advantage and will suffer in parties that don't often put them in the position to attack with advantage?

In flavor it's a cool idea, but in practice I could see it being a bit frustrating to play unless you set things up with a party to enable you.

I was thinking along the line of a monk subclass that applies a debuff that the whole party could take advantage of. Maybe a strike with flurry of blows the target gets a penalty of 1d4 to saves and AC.

Later on they can drain the same value and apply it to the monk. Maybe even to hit and damage at some point.

[Frozenstep]

I was thinking along the line of a monk subclass that applies a debuff that the whole party could take advantage of. Maybe a strike with flurry of blows the target gets a penalty of 1d4 to saves and AC.

Later on they can drain the same value and apply it to the monk. Maybe even to hit and damage at some point.

That's more reasonable.

[AdAstra]

I was thinking along the line of a monk subclass that applies a debuff that the whole party could take advantage of. Maybe a strike with flurry of blows the target gets a penalty of 1d4 to saves and AC.

Later on they can drain the same value and apply it to the monk. Maybe even to hit and damage at some point.

I will point out that Stunning Strike and Open Hand Monk already do something like this. Stunning Strike is a debuff that gives advantage and makes the target auto-fail Str and Dex saves. Open Hand Monk can knock targets prone (gives advantage to adjacent allies), remove their ability to take reactions (allows free movement around and away from the target) or push them (reposition them somewhere convenient to the party, and circumvent opportunity attacks for certain people)

[stoutstien]

I will point out that Stunning Strike and Open Hand Monk already do something like this. Stunning Strike is a debuff that gives advantage. Open Hand Monk can knock targets prone (gives advantage to adjacent allies), remove their ability to take reactions (allows free movement around and away from the target) or push them (reposition them somewhere convenient to the party, and circumvent opportunity attacks for certain people)

The problem is stunning strike it's an all-or-nothing effect. it Either completely shuts down a target or does nothing. Open hand monks are fine at playing Tetris with enemies but I think there is room for a monk that could apply a selection of effects that are less physical in nature. Punching a ogre in the soul.

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, a sensible contextual reading.

Which would be sensible because...? That is one problem i'm having. I'm not seeing why it should be that way even if i did before.


What was the question, "Is this how we're supposed to read it" or "Is this a completely impossible way of reading it"? Asking the second question and getting a no doesn't mean you get a yes on the first.

Both are valid questions, both are intended questions. There is a third, too: am i missing something that is there (or some external info)?

We might not be supposed to read it "this way", but it wouldn't be the first time we aren't "supposed" to read something one way even if the text doesn't really/clearly support the intended way. edit: Or i might be misreading the text. Always an option. I would like to have a bit of an argument as a support. Even if i didn't really buy into their motivations, i appreciated the attempt at discussing from, for example, Cikomyr. It let me think it over from a different perspective and still see something that i did miss. We might end up not agreeing. But it is fine.

Edit of the edit of the edit: I mean... "Deft Strike" very well points to "strike", singular. Then i remember "Chill Touch" and other instances and i sort of kind don't buy into that argument, too. :D

[djreynolds]

I guess KI fueled strikes might be good for 4 element monks.

And I apologize any comments about the paladin is sarcastic.

What the monk is missing is something akin to quivering palm, a big hit every now and again.

A monk is very party dependent, but skipping around the outskirts of the battlefield and picking off stragglers and setting up those tanks