Kensei : would it actually break anything?

[Scarytincan]

If the kensei could use their weapons with flurry attacks and martial arts attacks, would it actually break anything?

[MaxWilson]

If the kensei could use their weapons with flurry attacks and martial arts attacks, would it actually break anything?

Seems like it might break Sharpshooter. You get as many attacks as a 20th level fighter, but at level 5.

[Warlush]

Eh, I'd allow it at my table. I bet I'd be fine. And it would give you a real reason to play one.

[Dork_Forge]

Seems like it might break Sharpshooter. You get as many attacks as a 20th level fighter, but at level 5.

It'd be strong but without Archery or a way to increase accuracy I don't think it'd be broken especially on an inherently MAD class.

[Zetakya]

Seems like it might break Sharpshooter. You get as many attacks as a 20th level fighter, but at level 5.

If you expend Ki to get them.

[Scarytincan]

Hm, ya I could see an issue with the ranged attacks. Ok how about melee only being allowed for bonus action attacks, especially since ranged already has a damage boost option?

[MaxWilson]

It'd be strong but without Archery or a way to increase accuracy I don't think it'd be broken especially on an inherently MAD class.

If it only costs five levels to get four attacks it's easy to afford one level for Archery style.


Hm, ya I could see an issue with the ranged attacks. Ok how about melee only being allowed for bonus action attacks, especially since ranged already has a damage boost option?

Should be fine in that case. I'd allow it.


If you expend Ki to get them.

Yes. Otherwise three, per OP. But five to nine rounds per short rest of Sharpshooter x4 is too much for me to allow in Tier 2.

[Jerrykhor]

More damage usually won't break anything other than enemy faces. That said, i think its too big a buff for level 5 monks, but it sounds like a good replacement feature for Sharpen the Blade at 11 (i hate that feature).

[Scarytincan]

More damage usually won't break anything other than enemy faces. That said, i think its too big a buff for level 5 monks, but it sounds like a good replacement feature for Sharpen the Blade at 11 (i hate that feature).

Eh, by that tier that would be a very small boost unless you had a really really good weapon imo

[Dork_Forge]

If it only costs five levels to get four attacks it's easy to afford one level for Archery style.

Yes. Otherwise three, per OP. But five to nine rounds per short rest of Sharpshooter x4 is too much for me to allow in Tier 2.

You still have to pick up the feat itself and unless you roll really well Monks can't typically afford to lose their ASIs, even then you're burning your ki to do this and utilising a subclass feature. By level 6 a normal Fighter can be making 3 attacks every turn with a hand crossbow before even considering their subclass, with the option of using Action Surge to really pump out damage. A V. Human Gloomstalker ends up in the same place but with an additional attack every combat (with even more damage added to it).

Consider that Monks can't stun with ranged attacks and it becomes less likely someone playing a Monk would go this route unless they found themselves at a bad range disadvantage.

Could it be a strong option? Sure if you go V. Human and delay your Monk progression, but considering what's already available at similar levels I'm not seeing it actually break anything and if it ever became problematic (chances are any SS build would have become problematic too) then all you have to do is close distance, use higher AC enemies etc.

[Jerrykhor]

Eh, by that tier that would be a very small boost unless you had a really really good weapon imo

Yes, being level 11 is very likely to have rare or better magic weapon, isnt it? What is your intention of this change anyway? Do you think Kensei need a buff? Do you think Monk need a buff? Like others mention, the higher level you go, the cheaper the cost of imitating a level20 fighter. If you can't see how unfair that is, I don't know what to say. Extra attacks are a high level fighter feature for a reason.

Besides that, you will be unbalancing the options for Ki abilities, since Flurry is now so strong that there won't be any reason to use other Ki features. Its not like Flurry needs a buff anyways, when nobody uses Patient Defense or Step of the Wind.

[CorporateSlave]

Seems like it might break Sharpshooter. You get as many attacks as a 20th level fighter, but at level 5.

I dunno, at the continual cost of a Ki point and Bonus Action every turn, and without the Archery style +2 to help offset the -5 to Hit like a Fighter would have if going with a SS build. And by level 20 that fighter can boost it to 8 attacks twice per short rest, which is where the real power comes in. Not to mention by then the Fighter really ought to have a +5 in the applicable stat, and full +6 proficiency bonus. Just looking at the number of attacks and saying "it's broken" as if it was a fair comparison is as an analysis goes, well, a bit broken...:small wink:


So at level 5 (assuming V Human that got SS at level 1, so had level 4 ASI available for +2 DEX as best case scenario), a Monk could, by using a Subclass feature, burning one of their 5 Ki points, and using their Bonus Action every turn, could for 5 turns get 4 ranged attacks at +2 to hit.

A base fighter at level 20 gets those same 4 attacks, but without burning any resources whatsoever, at base +8 to Hit (and do whatever else with their Bonus Action, and able to boost it to 8 attacks twice per Short Rest).

Not just about how many...

[MaxWilson]

You still have to pick up the feat itself and unless you roll really well Monks can't typically afford to lose their ASIs, even then you're burning your ki to do this and utilising a subclass feature. By level 6 a normal Fighter can be making 3 attacks every turn with a hand crossbow before even considering their subclass, with the option of using Action Surge to really pump out damage. A V. Human Gloomstalker ends up in the same place but with an additional attack every combat (with even more damage added to it).

That's not right.

Gloomstalker 6 with Crossbow Expert (racial) and Sharpshooter has 4 attacks on round 1, 3 thereafter.

Kensei 5/Fighter 1 with Sharpshooter (racial) and +2 Dex, plus the original proposed houserule, has 4 attacks on rounds 1-5, with additional damage and longer range because it's a longbow instead of a hand crossbow, not to mention +1 to hit and damage from Dex, and higher mobility and missile catch. (I don't know about your games but the short range on hand crossbows is kind of a big deal in mine. CE fighters can't set up in sniper overwatch positions 400' away, tend to wind up taking damage in melee or short-ranged missile combat more than they might wish.)

Gloomstalker has nice stuff like Pass Without Trace but they're clearly worse at archery than the hypothetical kensei.

[Dork_Forge]

That's not right.

Gloomstalker 6 with Crossbow Expert (racial) and Sharpshooter has 4 attacks on round 1, 3 thereafter.

Kensei 5/Fighter 1 with Sharpshooter (racial) and +2 Dex, plus the original proposed houserule, has 4 attacks on rounds 1-5, with additional damage and longer range because it's a longbow instead of a hand crossbow, not to mention +1 to hit and damage from Dex, and higher mobility and missile catch. (I don't know about your games but the short range on hand crossbows is kind of a big deal in mine. CE fighters can't set up in sniper overwatch positions 400' away, tend to wind up taking damage in melee or short-ranged missile combat more than they might wish.)

Gloomstalker has nice stuff like Pass Without Trace but they're clearly worse at archery than the hypothetical kensei.

I was saying that a V. Human Gloom Stalker at level 6 would also have 3 attacks as standard with an additional attack per combat, that is entirely right. Okay you're bringing the rest of the Monk kit into it: Mobility, if movement speed actually becomes an issue in this comparison then Longstrider. If the Ranger takes some additional damage because they can't deflect missiles, then Cure Wounds, but the Ranger also has more hit points to begin with and that DM is going to reduce damage from a single attack per round. The Ranger can do what they do every single combat all day long, the Monk needs to burn very limited Ki in order to maintain that 4 attacks per round pace. Damage an issue? Hunter's Mark. Horde attacking your party? Hail of Thorns.

I'm very surprised you actually brought the range up. The standard range is 30ft for the hxb, I have never personally had that become an issue (and I've played a GS with CBE), but if you are actually finding the long range of 120ft an issue in normal combat then there's a fundamental balance issue that the rest of the party are going to take issue with. If it's just about taking an overwatch position, why would you want to be 400ft away? Just because you can? 120ft gives you enough to cover the battlefield and have enough distance between you and the enemy that it'll take the majority of creatures more than one turn to close on you. Putting out high damage as a sniper is going to make you a target, a Monk not only has less hp, but doens't benefit from being invisible in the dark to dark vision like a GS or having Pass Without Trace to stealthily establish that overwatch position to begin with.

The Monk is burning all of its resources all of the time to be a bit better at something, some of the time compared to the other builds bearing in mind that: Fighters have the option of Precision Attack and if Samurai losing an attack to make the rest at advantage and Rangers have the benefit of casting that augments their archery and the passive ability to be an unseen attacker anytime theyre fighting in the dark.

So unless I have missed anything here, how is that proposed Kensei breaking the game in comparison to the others? Especially since burning all of their Ki doing this is just ruling out the possibility of having Ki available for other things.

[Greywander]

If the kensei could use their weapons with flurry attacks and martial arts attacks, would it actually break anything?
My first thought is, "What's the point?" At some point, you'll be using your martial arts die anyway, so the damage will be the same. Do you just want the fluff of using a weapon instead of an unarmed strike?

Thinking about it more, there are ranged weapons to consider, as others have pointed out. Another issue, however, is that of magic weapons. If you have a Flame Tongue, it actually makes a big difference whether I let you use your weapon for Flurry.

Now, all of that said, if there was one monk subclass where it made sense to allow them to Flurry with a weapon, it would be the Kensei.

[MrStabby]

I always worry about questions like this.

Often it seems like people want to ask "would it actually break anything" but then use the answer as if the question asked was "would it make the game better". Not saying that this is the case here, but we should look out for it.

It is possible to have a deleterious impact on the game, for a change to be inadvisable, without it actually breaking anything. "Breaking something" is a high bar and any answer to this should not be deemed to apply to the question that wasnt asked.

So no, allowing this wont "actually break" anything, but it will make things less balanced and is inadvisable.

[chainer1216]

Yes, being level 11 is very likely to have rare or better magic weapon, isnt it? What is your intention of this change anyway? Do you think Kensei need a buff? Do you think Monk need a buff? Like others mention, the higher level you go, the cheaper the cost of imitating a level20 fighter. If you can't see how unfair that is, I don't know what to say. Extra attacks are a high level fighter feature for a reason.

Besides that, you will be unbalancing the options for Ki abilities, since Flurry is now so strong that there won't be any reason to use other Ki features. Its not like Flurry needs a buff anyways, when nobody uses Patient Defense or Step of the Wind.


I always worry about questions like this.

Often it seems like people want to ask "would it actually break anything" but then use the answer as if the question asked was "would it make the game better". Not saying that this is the case here, but we should look out for it.

It is possible to have a deleterious impact on the game, for a change to be inadvisable, without it actually breaking anything. "Breaking something" is a high bar and any answer to this should not be deemed to apply to the question that wasnt asked.

So no, allowing this wont "actually break" anything, but it will make things less balanced and is inadvisable.

are you two insinuating that monks and especially kensei are already strong choices? because they are not.

[Dork_Forge]

are you two insinuating that monks and especially kensei are already strong choices? because they are not.

Kensei could do with a slight bump, but the Monk class as a whole is solid. What are your issues with it?

[MrStabby]

are you two insinuating that monks and especially kensei are already strong choices? because they are not.

It really depends on the level. At level 20, no. They will always struggle to shine in a world of level 9 spells.

At level 8, where magic weapons are rare, where they have a good amount of Ki and where there is a high opportunity cost for most other classes to emulate a monks mobility, yes. They are very powerful.

[nickl_2000]

I think the main issue would be multiclassing and magical items.

If you have a weapon that adds 1dx damage to each hit with it, then it makes a big difference in overall damage.


The harder one to fight against would be the Monk with a dip into a class that gives a fighting style. Dueling would net you +8 damage per round using this. Archery would make sharpshooter pretty nasty (moreso with bracers of archery in there).

[stoutstien]

are you two insinuating that monks and especially kensei are already strong choices? because they are not.

Both monks and kensei are solid. They aren't the best of the worse but they are adaptable, flexible, and self sufficient. Monks can be added to any party and mold there tactics to fit.

Kensei are strong enough. They may not be top tier DPR/DPT but they do well enough without needing to spend anymore opportunity costs to keep up. A lv 6 champion fighter with archery or a champion with duelist sit about even 6 kensei doing both at once. IMO that is plenty of base damage.

You don't play monk for damage.you play monk because you wanted turn deadly encounters into easy ones. They are the d&d equivalent of a rodeo clown. Not needed but, the
Gore rate gets drastically reduced with one bouncing around.

[Democratus]

Would it break anything to just play by the rules?

What is it you are trying to address? A player feeling useless? That's not an issue with the race or class.

[Segev]

Would it break anything to just play by the rules?

What is it you are trying to address? A player feeling useless? That's not an issue with the race or class.

Given the thread premise, I assume the thing they are trying to fix is Kensei being too weak of a subclass choice.

If you believe it not to be, sharing the reasons it is strong enough as-is would be helpful.

[TIPOT]

Given the thread premise, I assume the thing they are trying to fix is Kensei being too weak of a subclass choice.

If you believe it not to be, sharing the reasons it is strong enough as-is would be helpful.

Why don't you start by sharing why it's not strong enough as is?

I think it's fine as is powerwise, but a bit mechanically clunky.

[Quietus]

If the issue is Kensei getting four attacks with their chosen weapon, perhaps scale it back - you can either spend a Ki to do flurry of blows for two unarmed strikes, or you can spend a Ki to do a weapon flurry, getting one additional attack with your weapon as a bonus action. Probably needs some kind of rider to make it competitive with just using flurry, outside of having a cool magic weapon. You could plug the second bonus action attack back in later on when it's more in line with what other classes are getting, I'd look at this at the level 11 subclass feature.

Actually, I'd probably just make it "When you use Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows, you can replace one of the bonus action attacks with your Kensei Weapon", and fold that into the level 6 ability. Then at level 11 allow both, because at that point it feels more appropriate to party balance. A Fighter is also getting three attacks per action, and a sharpshooter can have XBE to get a fourth with their bonus.

[Segev]

Why don't you start by sharing why it's not strong enough as is?

I think it's fine as is powerwise, but a bit mechanically clunky.

I don't know the class well enough. I agree, discussing that would be helpful. But the OP asked if it would break anything. Insinuating that he or his players are inadequate/problematic for daring to ask the question is unhelpful. Especially when there's an implicit assertion that it's fine if you are an adequate player.

Implying people are problems for not seeing how to use something but refraining from demonstrating the obviously good nature of it doesn't seem to contribute much to the thread.

[MrStabby]

I don't know the class well enough. I agree, discussing that would be helpful. But the OP asked if it would break anything. Snarkily insinuating that he or his players are inadequate/problematic for daring to ask the question is unhelpful. Especially when there's an implicit assertion that it's fine if you are an adequate player.

Implying people are problems for not seeing how to use something but refraining from demonstrating the obviously good nature of it doesn't seem to contribute much to the thread.

I can certainly speak to its power as a class having been DM to a number. Yeah their damage isn't great at mid levels, but that's not what they are for. They are about the control they bring - if you want to compare damage, compare to a class that is also about control like the bard.

The key thing to understand about the monk is that its value isn't just about averages either. Having the mobility to get to the enemy in the fight with the nastiest spells or attacks and launch enough stunning strikes at them to shut them down is really powerful.

I find that players tend to underestimate monks because they never get to see the thing that didnt happen. They dont see the hold person out of a 6th level spell slot that the wizard would have cast if they hadn't been stunned. They dont see the mind flayed attempting to stun the whole party etc..

I think there is a tendency for people to get a bit snarky about monks complaining about damage (or implying it by trying to buff damage) - it can read as not just wanting to be the martial class best at control, but also to be that without having to compromise on damage. It's like asking if it would be breaking anything to give barbarians access to enchantment magic on the basis that they are not very good at control spells. It's true, but not what the class is about the class has other spells to compensate and it doesn't follow that the game would be better were you to add that change in.

[Segev]

I can certainly speak to its power as a class having been DM to a number. Yeah their damage isn't great at mid levels, but that's not what they are for. They are about the control they bring - if you want to compare damage, compare to a class that is also about control like the bard.

The key thing to understand about the monk is that its value isn't just about averages either. Having the mobility to get to the enemy in the fight with the nastiest spells or attacks and launch enough stunning strikes at them to shut them down is really powerful.

I find that players tend to underestimate monks because they never get to see the thing that didnt happen. They dont see the hold person out of a 6th level spell slot that the wizard would have cast if they hadn't been stunned. They dont see the mind flayed attempting to stun the whole party etc..

I think there is a tendency for people to get a bit snarky about monks complaining about damage (or implying it by trying to buff damage) - it can read as not just wanting to be the martial class best at control, but also to be that without having to compromise on damage. It's like asking if it would be breaking anything to give barbarians access to enchantment magic on the basis that they are not very good at control spells. It's true, but not what the class is about the class has other spells to compensate and it doesn't follow that the game would be better were you to add that change in.

All well and good, but I don't see a lot about what makes the Kensei stand out here, compared to any other subclass. This is mostly about "monks are cool," which I am glad to see, but the question is what it is that Kensei bring to the table. It seems to me that everything you've said here could be said about a Drunken Master, a Four Elements monk, or a Long Death monk just as easily, and if they're asking about buffing the Kensei in particular, and the assertion is that "Kensei is fine as-is," it should be shown that Kensei is fine compared to other monk subclasses, not just that monk is fine. If somebody wants to buff Kensei, they're seeing it as inferior to other monk choices, most likely, but wanting to play it for some reason anyway and not wanting to feel "punished" for choosing what they perceive to be a weaker option. Showing why it's not a weaker option is probably the best way to make the case, "Kensei is fine as-is."

[stoutstien]

All well and good, but I don't see a lot about what makes the Kensei stand out here, compared to any other subclass. This is mostly about "monks are cool," which I am glad to see, but the question is what it is that Kensei bring to the table. It seems to me that everything you've said here could be said about a Drunken Master, a Four Elements monk, or a Long Death monk just as easily, and if they're asking about buffing the Kensei in particular, and the assertion is that "Kensei is fine as-is," it should be shown that Kensei is fine compared to other monk subclasses, not just that monk is fine. If somebody wants to buff Kensei, they're seeing it as inferior to other monk choices, most likely, but wanting to play it for some reason anyway and not wanting to feel "punished" for choosing what they perceive to be a weaker option. Showing why it's not a weaker option is probably the best way to make the case, "Kensei is fine as-is."

Kensei has more ranged combat potential and the longest life span if they get stuck or choose to stay up close and personal with enemies. On top of that that are have very low ki costs compared to most of the other monk options. More ki means more SS attempts, more flurry of blows, or both.
At later levels Sharpen the blade is one of the only ways for players to enhance a weapon that is already magical. Sure if your table hands out +3 weapons it loses some ground but at the same time you can turn an oathbow into a +3 oathbow or a frost brand into a +3 frost brand.

[Scarytincan]

If the issue is Kensei getting four attacks with their chosen weapon, perhaps scale it back - you can either spend a Ki to do flurry of blows for two unarmed strikes, or you can spend a Ki to do a weapon flurry, getting one additional attack with your weapon as a bonus action. Probably needs some kind of rider to make it competitive with just using flurry, outside of having a cool magic weapon. You could plug the second bonus action attack back in later on when it's more in line with what other classes are getting, I'd look at this at the level 11 subclass feature.

Actually, I'd probably just make it "When you use Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows, you can replace one of the bonus action attacks with your Kensei Weapon", and fold that into the level 6 ability. Then at level 11 allow both, because at that point it feels more appropriate to party balance. A Fighter is also getting three attacks per action, and a sharpshooter can have XBE to get a fourth with their bonus.

This is kind of what was forming in my mind at this point but you polished it all off very nicely thank you. I think this would be a perfect way to touch up the subclass and help it reach its fantasy.


Would it break anything to just play by the rules?

What is it you are trying to address? A player feeling useless? That's not an issue with the race or class.

Great contribution, thanks. Scholarly curiosity for someone who is passionate about the monk class.


Kensei could do with a slight bump, but the Monk class as a whole is solid. What are your issues with it?

In my experience, kensei is generally regarded as one of the bottom half of monk subs in terms of mechanical power, on a class that is widely regarded as one of the weakest. I personally wouldn't go so far as to call it 'weak', and am overall very pleased with how 5e did monks compared to past editions, but I still think there's room to improve.

If played smart and optimized well, a monk can certainly be plenty strong. It just takes a lot more smarts and optimizing to get there, which means functionally it underperforms for many newer players. This is actually a small part of the appeal of the class to me, as I enjoy optimizing while still being well balanced for the game health and not outshining the rest of the party, but rather enhancing them. But even so, I feel they could use just a little more love as a whole. Not a lot, but a bit. No game system has ever perfectly balanced all aspects and never will, but it is still a good goal to strive for. For monks, maybe some grappling love would go a long way? I digress...

For kensei specifically, the fantasy is strong and, imo, a fairly popular one. Sadly in practice, we have a subclass that gives too much reason to NOT use what is generally going to be the appeal of the subclass in the first place, and very little reason actually TO use the weapon, unless it's ranged.

[Democratus]

Great contribution, thanks. Scholarly curiosity for sometime who is passionate about the monk class.


Thanks.

I often find it useful to get back to the root of the problem you are trying to address before jumping to a quick fix or a rules patch.

Sometimes the issue isn't the rule but the perception of the player.

[Scarytincan]

If somebody wants to buff Kensei, they're seeing it as inferior to other monk choices, most likely, but wanting to play it for some reason anyway and not wanting to feel "punished" for choosing what they perceive to be a weaker option. Showing why it's not a weaker option is probably the best way to make the case, "Kensei is fine as-is."

This, frankly. I feel currently that the subclass appeals to a particular and fairly popular fantasy, but kind of punishes people for pursuing it, compared to what other subs they 'could have' taken instead. Trying to give it a little love so it's not so feelsbadman.

[Man_Over_Game]

Besides that, you will be unbalancing the options for Ki abilities, since Flurry is now so strong that there won't be any reason to use other Ki features. Its not like Flurry needs a buff anyways, when nobody uses Patient Defense or Step of the Wind.

Agreed. I'd much rather see more incorporation of the Monk's other abilities, like his mobility, than the basic weapon attack damage that everyone else can do.

[tKUUNK]

Hm, ya I could see an issue with the ranged attacks. Ok how about melee only being allowed for bonus action attacks, especially since ranged already has a damage boost option?

Yep. You'll be 100% fine to start with this at your table, and see how it goes.

For any rules tweak like this- a power bump for one player- I suggest okaying it with all players at the table first. Get their honest feedback. As great as the advice can be on GitP, we're not seated at your game!

have fun hacking things to bits with that bonus action. :)

[Vogie]

The issue with the kensei monk was the fact that they get higher damage die early on. It's just a subtle, unflashy mechanic that would be subtly, and unflashily broken:

At level 3, most monks are doing 3d4 damage during a flurry, maybe 1d8+2d4 with a staff, while kensei can do 1d10+2d4 during a flurry
At level 5, most monks are doing 4d6 damage during a flurry, while kensei can do 2d10+2d6 during a flurry
Having them use their Kensei weapon on all attacks, with a max damage of d10, is effectively giving them their 17th level monk feature at level 5.

I'd actually try to fix it another way - Remember Sharpen the Blade states "This feature has no effect on a magic weapon that already has a bonus to attack and damage rolls." The best way to give the monk upgrades that don't step on that feature is by providing weapons that only have +X attack bonuses or +X Damage bonuses. So a Flametongue Longsword, that merely gives +2d6 fire damage on hit, can be turned into a +3 Flametongue Longsword in the hands of the Kensei. Having items like that available actually makes the Kensei not suck at higher levels, it just provides a tiny bit more work as a DM to make sure your weapons aren't just +X weapons




Although no one in my games has asked me yet, I'd also certainly allow a kensei player to choose "improvised weapons" as one of their kensei weapons so they could very well be fighting a dragon with a +3 Magic Barstool... or Refrigerator door (Ah, Rumble in the Bronx).

[Segev]

Kensei has more ranged combat potential and the longest life span if they get stuck or choose to stay up close and personal with enemies. On top of that that are have very low ki costs compared to most of the other monk options. More ki means more SS attempts, more flurry of blows, or both.
At later levels Sharpen the blade is one of the only ways for players to enhance a weapon that is already magical. Sure if your table hands out +3 weapons it loses some ground but at the same time you can turn an oathbow into a +3 oathbow or a frost brand into a +3 frost brand.

That does sound pretty cool. I'm not sure why they have teh longest life span, but I'll take your word for it.


Another poster mentioned what amount to perverse incentives not to use the class features, in the form of features which conflict with each other and don't really complement. What's the issue, here? Tweaking things to make them complementary is probably a better way to go than just giving them more damaging attacks.

[MaxWilson]

If it's just about taking an overwatch position, why would you want to be 400ft away? Just because you can?

Simply put:

(1) It gives the other PCs more flexibility to buy time by e.g. Disengaging or Dashing away, without worrying about a "wasted round" or what will happen to the sniper. Ditto if they're trying to draw monsters out to be destroyed. If you were closer to them you'd have to spend that time Dashing too instead of shooting.

(2) When you don't know exactly where contact with hostiles will occur, it prevents you from having to shift positions as frequently.


But even so, I feel they could use just a little more love as a whole. Not a lot, but a bit. No game system has ever perfectly balanced all aspects and never will, but it is still a good goal to strive for. For monks, maybe some grappling love would go a long way? I digress...

They did get a grappling buff about a year and a half ago, with PHB errata: incapacitated creatures now auto-fail Grapple or Shove contests, so if you Stunning Strike a monster one round, you can Grapple + Prone it the next with 100% success rate even if your Athletics is merely +4 or so. No extra ki cost to keep the monster locked down at least one additional round while it contests the grapple.

And of course there are party synergies if e.g. some of the druid's summoned apes *also* take advantage of your Stunning Strikes.

Also BTW, Prodigy (Athletics) and Defensive Duelist are extremely fun on a monk. You feel like a real jiujitsu master even when you're not spending ki. E.g. Grab somebody by the collar, flip them over your back to land prone, bonus action kick in the throat. Best way IMO to play an Elemonk (pretend this text is in purple) is to play a variant human and take those two feats early on.


That does sound pretty cool. I'm not sure why they have teh longest life span, but I'll take your word for it.

He's probably thinking of the +2 AC the Kensei gets for making an unarmed attack, and then stacking that with Patient Defense.


Another poster mentioned what amount to perverse incentives not to use the class features, in the form of features which conflict with each other and don't really complement. What's the issue, here? Tweaking things to make them complementary is probably a better way to go than just giving them more damaging attacks.

Same deal: to get the AC bonus you wind up with a Kensei who makes one weapon attack and then two or three unarmed attacks. Some people dislike how that feels from a fiction perspective (not power). You've now got a legendary sword saint who rarely uses his sword.

[Amechra]

So, it depends on when you give them the feature, the balance level of your table, and whether or not you're going to let them flurry with ranged weapons.

In melee, this means a few things - it gives a mediocre damage boost at the levels where a Monk deals good damage (which falls off as your Martial Arts die size increases), and it allows you to use a magic weapon more freely. I'd honestly replace Sharpen The Blade with "you can flurry with kensei weapons", because that's the point when you'll have some magic items and when Monks start falling off in terms of damage.

On the flip side, I would not allow people to flurry with a ranged weapon, for a few reasons:

1) It beats up the Sun Soul Monk and steals its lunch money. If you look at Radiant Sun Bolt and go "that would be way too weak for my table", you can ignore this criticism.

2) Sharpshooter. A Kensei goes ranged doesn't need their Wisdom to be as high as a normal Monk's, so they can more easily squeeze in a feat. While effectively having a -2 to hit from not having Archery hurts, you can have four attacks per round at a level where most people with the same weapon only have two. Which means that the law of averages will make you much more likely to hit 2+ times per turn.

3) Ki usage. A lot of the feeling that Monks don't have enough ki are based off of Stunning Strike - once you have that feature, you can be spending 2-5 points of ki per turn. If you take Stunning Strike out of the equation (which is what happens when you use a ranged weapon), you're suddenly capped at spending 1-2 ki per turn, which is much more sustainable. In other words, a ranged Monk would be able to flurry more often than a non-ranged Monk.

4) It directly eclipses and obsoletes Kensei's Shot as soon as it comes online. I find that aesthetically displeasing - your mileage may vary.

I think the comparison to a Gloom Stalker Ranger with Crossbow Expert is apt, but not necessarily helpful. The Ranger can get 4 attacks on their first turn in combat, then 3 attacks on each turn thereafter. Monks can actually control when they get their 4 attack turns, and they can have more of them in a given fight. What's more, the Ranger spent a feat to get that hand crossbow attack - the Monk got it as a freebie. If you're that worried about not having the Archery fighting style, you can grab it with a one level dip in Fighter.

[Segev]

And, frankly, a 2-level dip in fighter will be pretty synergistic with just about any monk. Not so good as to be must-do, but certainly worth considering, especially if a fighting style complements your own style. Duelist should work with most monks (hold a dagger in one hand for its benfits), and the second wind and action surge will just be very, very nice coupled with monks' normal action economy.

[Dork_Forge]

Simply put:

(1) It gives the other PCs more flexibility to buy time by e.g. Disengaging or Dashing away, without worrying about a "wasted round" or what will happen to the sniper. Ditto if they're trying to draw monsters out to be destroyed. If you were closer to them you'd have to spend that time Dashing too instead of shooting.

(2) When you don't know exactly where contact with hostiles will occur, it prevents you from having to shift positions as frequently.


If you're around 100ft away (to give some flexibility in being able to cover the battlefield), then you're still a triple move away from the majority of PCs and a dash away from most monsters. You could comfortably just use your standard movement speed to elongate the distance as necessary without having to give anything up: Party all dash to you, you just move backwards, you retain a 70ft gap. Even playing with that kind of distance isn't always guranteed based on the terrain and circumstances of the combat.

After a certain point I just think increasing the distance is just diminishing returns in that aspect and increasing risk in others. If this is actually your strategy then a DM WILL come for you at some point to challenge you, be it with flying ranged attackers or just sending minions on your position. The smalled the gap from the group the less time your party needs to help you out (and even then it'd be nice if the Warlock for example could just turn their EB in your direction and help out that way) and the less time it takes for you to get to your party if things go south and death saves are being made. Even a Monk burning Ki (which given your suggested playstyle, they may not even have) to triple dash would need 3+ rounds to actually get to their party members. That just sounds like a recipe for your death or the death of party members.

Since you didn't address any of it, is it safe to assume you reconsidered that a Kensei like this wouldn't break the game? To clarify, I woudn't use this fix myself, I like the bonus action damage mechanic, so I'd only allow melee weapons for martial arts/flurry. Kepps the Kensei off the toes of the Sun Soul too.

[stoutstien]

Agreed. I'd much rather see more incorporation of the Monk's other abilities, like his mobility, than the basic weapon attack damage that everyone else can do.
I think that's the problem for most player option that aren't necessarily just more damage. If flurry of blows or step to the wind / patient defense was moved off the bonus action so monks could utilize their non damage options more readily.

I've always liked the concept of patient defense being a reaction.

[MaxWilson]

I think that's the problem for most player option that aren't necessarily just more damage. If flurry of blows or step to the wind / patient defense was moved off the bonus action so monks could utilize their non damage options more readily.

I've always liked the concept of patient defense being a reaction.

I've always thought that Stillness of Mind should be a reaction.


If you're around 100ft away (to give some flexibility in being able to cover the battlefield), then you're still a triple move away from the majority of PCs and a dash away from most monsters. You could comfortably just use your standard movement speed to elongate the distance as necessary without having to give anything up: Party all dash to you, you just move backwards, you retain a 70ft gap. Even playing with that kind of distance isn't always guranteed based on the terrain and circumstances of the combat.

After a certain point I just think increasing the distance is just diminishing returns in that aspect and increasing risk in others. If this is actually your strategy then a DM WILL come for you at some point to challenge you, be it with flying ranged attackers or just sending minions on your position. The smalled the gap from the group the less time your party needs to help you out (and even then it'd be nice if the Warlock for example could just turn their EB in your direction and help out that way) and the less time it takes for you to get to your party if things go south and death saves are being made. Even a Monk burning Ki (which given your suggested playstyle, they may not even have) to triple dash would need 3+ rounds to actually get to their party members. That just sounds like a recipe for your death or the death of party members.

Since you didn't address any of it, is it safe to assume you reconsidered that a Kensei like this wouldn't break the game? To clarify, I woudn't use this fix myself, I like the bonus action damage mechanic, so I'd only allow melee weapons for martial arts/flurry. Kepps the Kensei off the toes of the Sun Soul too.

I don't understand this question in bold. My opinion is on the record in posts #2 and #7. Does that answer your question?

Edit: oh, I think you were asking, "Have I persuaded you?" The answer to that is "No, your opinion is not persuasive and I don't share it." I've already told you why in some detail and I'm not going to rathole on a discussion of sniper tactics or whether it's better to make four attacks per round every single round using Flurry or only three using Martial Arts. I'm under no obligation to keep arguing until you change your mind--I have better things to do.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't understand this question in bold. My opinion is on the record in posts #2 and #7. Does that answer your question?

Edit: oh, I think you were asking, "Have I persuaded you?" The answer to that is "No, your opinion is not persuasive and I don't share it." I've already told you why in some detail and I'm not going to rathole on a discussion of sniper tactics or whether it's better to make four attacks per round every single round using Flurry or only three using Martial Arts. I'm under no obligation to keep arguing until you change your mind--I have better things to do.

You didn't actually justify WHY that breaks the game, and your comparison is flawed, as was pointed out by another poster.

You choose to have in your signature a way of indicating that your mind will not be changed and I have grown accustomed to you using it. You not only did not use purple text, you completely ignored the bulk of my post, choosing to answer one particular thing about sniper tactics. So how are people you interact with on a board meant to know you 'have better things to do' than engage about the opinion you chose to share when you gave no indication about it at all?

My opinion is that the potential increase in damage (whilst constantly burning a resource) does not push it into broken territory in comparison to options already available RAW. You opinion differs and you don't want to continue, then cool.

[MaxWilson]

You didn't actually justify WHY that breaks the game, and your comparison is flawed, as was pointed out by another poster.

You choose to have in your signature a way of indicating that your mind will not be changed and I have grown accustomed to you using it. You not only did not use purple text, you completely ignored the bulk of my post, choosing to answer one particular thing about sniper tactics. So how are people you interact with on a board meant to know you 'have better things to do' than engage about the opinion you chose to share when you gave no indication about it at all?

Fair point. Since this whole thread is inherently a subjective thread about game design opinions and feelings, it didn't occur to me to put posts #2 and #7 in purple text (especially since I think I was on phone where purple text is harder), but purple text would not have been inappropriate there. I did however use the verbal equivalent: "Seems like it might break Sharpshooter. You get as many attacks as a 20th level fighter, but at level 5."

I will be more clear: from a standpoint of power, giving out 3 longbow attacks per round at-will at level 5 is probably not broken, even with Sharpshooter, nor is giving out a 4th attack per round 5-20 times per short rest. I think it might be bad though from the perspective of game design: you're giving out the Fighter's 20th level goodies at level 6, and playing a fighter up to level 20 might feel bad.

Better?

All the rest of the discussion has just been discussing various tradeoffs like Longstrider vs. monk's inherently-higher move, or Deflect Missiles vs. Pass Without Trace. (You cannot refute that the Monk gets more rounds of 4 attacks than the Gloomstalker does or that the Monk has +2 Dex from not needing to get Crossbow Expert, but you just ignored that point and moved on to discussing the tradeoffs, which I treated as if you had been using purple text for. You like Pass Without Trace more than missile catch, well fine, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong.)


My opinion is that the potential increase in damage (whilst constantly burning a resource) does not push it into broken territory in comparison to options already available RAW. You opinion differs and you don't want to continue, then cool.

Yes, I know that is your opinion. It is a valid opinion.

[Scarytincan]

I'd actually try to fix it another way - Remember Sharpen the Blade states "This feature has no effect on a magic weapon that already has a bonus to attack and damage rolls." The best way to give the monk upgrades that don't step on that feature is by providing weapons that only have +X attack bonuses or +X Damage bonuses. So a Flametongue Longsword, that merely gives +2d6 fire damage on hit, can be turned into a +3 Flametongue Longsword in the hands of the Kensei. Having items like that available actually makes the Kensei not suck at higher levels, it just provides a tiny bit more work as a DM to make sure your weapons aren't just +X weapons



The problem I have here is that then the kensei sword master then ends up using their amazing sword that they journeyed to the top of mount Uber Awesome to get the star metal for his master to forge in the belly of Rather Hot volcanoe for half or a quarter of their attacks in an attack routine. Feelsbadman. Overall I think the balance is OKAY, but I think it could use a small tweak up still and if so, this is the area I would target it. I'm kinda liking the suggestion from earlier of 1 ki at level 6 to use weapon once on a bonus action instead and 2 at lvl 11. Ki cost I think would balance it well.




They did get a grappling buff about a year and a half ago, with PHB errata: incapacitated creatures now auto-fail Grapple or Shove contests, so if you Stunning Strike a monster one round, you can Grapple + Prone it the next with 100% success rate even if your Athletics is merely +4 or so.



Ya, I don't really consider errata a buff. To me that was clarification on something that just made sense. My personal take anyway. But I don't think a master who dedicates themself to martial arts should have to rely on stunning someone first to be good at grappling. It's not really grappling if they can't fight back, more like creepy heavy petting. I think even just adding wis mod to grapple checks would be fine...

[MaxWilson]

Ya, I don't really consider errata a buff. To me that was clarification on something that just made sense. My personal take anyway. But I don't think a master who dedicates themself to martial arts should have to rely on stunning someone first to be good at grappling. It's not really grappling if they can't fight back, more like creepy heavy petting. I think even just adding wis mod to grapple checks would be fine...

Makes sense. Maybe let you substitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Strength (Athletics)?

[Zalabim]

Kensei could do with a slight bump, but the Monk class as a whole is solid. What are your issues with it?
Oddly, I have the exact opposite opinion. Kensei seems solid (within monk's other subclass options) but the monk class as a whole could use a slight bump. I often allow the class could use a d10 hit die and slightly faster growth of martial arts damage (going up at each proficiency increase).

Given the thread premise, I assume the thing they are trying to fix is Kensei being too weak of a subclass choice.

If you believe it not to be, sharing the reasons it is strong enough as-is would be helpful.
My experience with these questions tells me it's usually about how the class feels and not its power. That is, they usually say they just feel like it should use a weapon in more attacks. It is already able to use different weapons, in more ways, and to greater effects. No matter. Doesn't attack enough.

For kensei specifically, the fantasy is strong and, imo, a fairly popular one. Sadly in practice, we have a subclass that gives too much reason to NOT use what is generally going to be the appeal of the subclass in the first place, and very little reason actually TO use the weapon, unless it's ranged.
This is the description I usually see. It is extremely tired.


In my experience, kensei is generally regarded as one of the bottom half of monk subs in terms of mechanical power, on a class that is widely regarded as one of the weakest.
Bottom half of Open Hand, Shadows, Four Elements, Sun Soul, Kensei, Long Death, and Drunken Master? Kensei is clearly the best at damage, clearly sits above four elements, drunken master, and sun soul, and trades off different strengths with the remaining set of long death, open hand, and shadows. Even among these, for not having any wasted or weirdly niche features, it's probably the best designed monk subclass to date. It has a clear role that it outperforms all other monks within, which I can only also say of Shadows and scouting.

The problem I have here is that then the kensei sword master then ends up using their amazing sword that they journeyed to the top of mount Uber Awesome to get the star metal for his master to forge in the belly of Rather Hot volcanoe for half or a quarter of their attacks in an attack routine. Feelsbadman.
But still this. This isn't a kensei thing though. Do you think the fantasy of an Open Hand monk is to use a weapon for half or two thirds of their attacks (and the better half at that)? Of course not. Monks have a thing where they blend unarmed attacks and attacks with a weapon, whether that feels right or not. I don't have any ideas on how to fix it, so I just made peace with it for now. If the monk class were broader, to include fully unarmed monks, then it should also include fully weaponed monks. Within what the class actually offers, Kensei is able to use different weapons, in more ways, and to greater effects.

Anyway, if you attach a ki cost to making bonus action kensei weapon attacks, it will in all likelihood be worse than flurry for the single attack version (1 ki) and be a less efficient, stronger flurry for the two attack version (2 ki), depending on what magic weapons are around. The biggest risk is when they can make up to four attacks, with a +3 whatever, with rerolling the first miss (if any). Normal endgame attacks would be either:
Martial arts +14/+14/+11 for 1d10+8, 1d10+8, 1d10+5 for no further ki. 10.4, 10.4, 6.575. 27.375
Flurry +14/+14/+11/+11 for 1d10+8, 1d10+8, 1d10+5, 1d10+5. 10.4, 10.4, 6.575, 6.575. 33.95
Or Kensei +14/+14/+14 for 1d10+8, 1d10+8, 1d10+8 at 1 ki. 10.4, 10.4, 10.4. 31.2+
And Kensei 2 +14/+14/+14/+14 for 1d10+8, 1d10+8, 1d10+8, 1d10+8 at 2 ki. 10.4, 10.4, 10.4, 10.4. 41.6+
Against AC 20. As a reference, gwf half-orc champion 20 does 39.5, no feats.

So, generally not broken, not going to make fighters cry, but might not satisfy your monk players given the Ki costs, and definitely not worth it without the equivalent of at least a +3 weapon/huge difference between martial arts and weapon die. I think the Ki is still better spent on stunning strike. It also overlaps with/adds to the option to spend Ki for a bonus die of damage, Deft Strike, which is already 5.5/ki or 11/ki on crits. Either way you go, the difference between unarmed and weapon attacks is generally smaller than the value of 1 ki point. You either pay too much or too little. You're welcome to try it, but again, this is a symptom of a broader monk issue I don't see a solution for at this time.

Thinking about it, you could give the ability as early as level 6, and there's other permutations. I don't think 1 Ki to switch 1 attack is worthwhile. 1 Ki to switch 2 attacks is better. Now consider, switch 1 attack for free, when you flurry. So you'd always make only one of your bonus action attacks unarmed, and it would not have the conflict with deft strike.

[sithlordnergal]

If you're around 100ft away (to give some flexibility in being able to cover the battlefield), then you're still a triple move away from the majority of PCs and a dash away from most monsters. You could comfortably just use your standard movement speed to elongate the distance as necessary without having to give anything up: Party all dash to you, you just move backwards, you retain a 70ft gap. Even playing with that kind of distance isn't always guranteed based on the terrain and circumstances of the combat.


One of my players tried that strategy once, where they were beyond 150ft. I warned them that, due to their distance, they would have a choice. Take an entire round to dash back, using any actions and bonus actions to do so, or sit out of combat and do not gain any rewards from it for leaving the battle.

[Scarytincan]

Anyway, if you attach a ki cost to making bonus action kensei weapon attacks, it will in all likelihood be worse than flurry for the single attack version (1 ki) and be a less efficient, stronger flurry for the two attack version (2 ki), depending on what magic weapons are around.

To clarify, as I see I wasn't before, I meant 1 ki for one attack, which later increases to 2 attacks, not 2 ki. So basically just replaces flurry with 2 weapon attacks for same amount of ki at 11.

[Cry Havoc]

Yes, being level 11 is very likely to have rare or better magic weapon, isnt it?

Plenty of amazing magical weapons that dont provide bonuses to hit or damage and work just fine with Sharpen the Blade.

Swords of life stealing, Flametounge swords, Frost brands, Weapon of warning, Sword of sharpness, Oathbows, Weapons of Wounding, Maces of Terror and Disruption, Viscious weapons, trident of fish command etc.

[Dork_Forge]

One of my players tried that strategy once, where they were beyond 150ft. I warned them that, due to their distance, they would have a choice. Take an entire round to dash back, using any actions and bonus actions to do so, or sit out of combat and do not gain any rewards from it for leaving the battle.

That's definitely something to consider, personally I don't do ranged beyond 30ish feet from the party, but the discussion turned to being 400ft away from the party which seemed not just unnecessary but impractical.

[Segev]

One of my players tried that strategy once, where they were beyond 150ft. I warned them that, due to their distance, they would have a choice. Take an entire round to dash back, using any actions and bonus actions to do so, or sit out of combat and do not gain any rewards from it for leaving the battle.

That seems arbitrary. Why would you do that? Was he unable to shoot at that range?

[sithlordnergal]

That seems arbitrary. Why would you do that? Was he unable to shoot at that range?

Technically he could with a longbow, but at that point he was outside of the battle map. I'm not one to allow combatants to leave a certain radius of the battlefield, and the max size I tend to use for combat is 150ft. Just far enough for a Fireball to reach across. The only time you do combat outside of that 150ft range in my games is if its something special, like two ships/airships doing battle with each other using . You don't normally get to snipe people from 600ft with a longbow in my games. You're simply not in combat at that range, and can't engage.

If I didn't, then I have two players who would try to snipe everything from that 600 foot range whenever they could, and it would cause the game to be less fun for the Barbarian, Moon Druid, ect.

[MaxWilson]

Technically he could with a longbow, but at that point he was outside of the battle map. I'm not one to allow combatants to leave a certain radius of the battlefield, and the max size I tend to use for combat is 150ft. Just far enough for a Fireball to reach across. The only time you do combat outside of that 150ft range in my games is if its something special, like two ships/airships doing battle with each other using . You don't normally get to snipe people from 600ft with a longbow in my games. You're simply not in combat at that range, and can't engage.

If I didn't, then I have two players who would try to snipe everything from that 600 foot range whenever they could, and it would cause the game to be less fun for the Barbarian, Moon Druid, ect.

Well, that certainly does make magic stronger w/rt ranged weaponry: you're almost always within spell range of some kind.

I imagine, based on unspoken assumptions that I notice in this forum, that there are a lot of play groups out there who also never think to or don't allow "leaving the battlegrid." There are rather a lot of posters who seem to think that a quarter of a mile is an absurdly long distance at which to perceive anything, and that interactions between human beings happen exclusively within 150' of each other.

I suspect your way of running things is rather common.

[sithlordnergal]

Well, that certainly does make magic stronger w/rt ranged weaponry: you're almost always within spell range of some kind.

I imagine, based on unspoken assumptions that I notice in this forum, that there are a lot of play groups out there who also never think to or don't allow "leaving the battlegrid." There are rather a lot of posters who seem to think that a quarter of a mile is an absurdly long distance at which to perceive anything, and that interactions between human beings happen exclusively within 150' of each other.

I suspect your way of running things is rather common.

Yup, unless there is some sort special circumstance, you will always be within range of a spell. And I run it that way on purpose, so that no one can try to cheese an encounter by standing 600 feet away and snipe at an enemy. It does weaken things like spell sniper and the Invocation that makes Eldritch Blast have a range of 300 feet, but I'm not too concerned about that. Combat should really only be happening within 60 feet anyway, with 150 being the very edge of where you can reach. It really fixes the issue of "I can't be hit because I'm out of range of everything but another Longbow, and can whittle down everything before it reaches me".

EDIT: The same rules hold true for enemies and other NPCs. Outside of very special circumstances, they can't attack you and you can't attack them until you reach that 150ft. I do allow for a bit more vertical distance though. You could go about 250ft into the air above a combat area and be fine. Most encounters don't allow for that sort of height due to locations.

[MaxWilson]

Yup, unless there is some sort special circumstance, you will always be within range of a spell. And I run it that way on purpose, so that no one can try to cheese an encounter by standing 600 feet away and snipe at an enemy. It does weaken things like spell sniper and the Invocation that makes Eldritch Blast have a range of 300 feet, but I'm not too concerned about that. Combat should really only be happening within 60 feet anyway, with 150 being the very edge of where you can reach. It really fixes the issue of "I can't be hit because I'm out of range of everything but another Longbow, and can whittle down everything before it reaches me".

EDIT: The same rules hold true for enemies and other NPCs. Outside of very special circumstances, they can't attack you and you can't attack them until you reach that 150ft. I do allow for a bit more vertical distance though. You could go about 250ft into the air above a combat area and be fine. Most encounters don't allow for that sort of height due to locations.

I've considered adding a similar limitation to my 5E CRPG just to make implemention simpler--if you leave the map you're out of the combat--but I just can't stand what that does to tactics. It creates edge cases (literally and figurative) and allows tactics that don't belong in RPG-based combat. I feel compelled to make the battlespace expandable even though it's more complex to implement, in the same way I can't stand discretizing every building to a 5' x 5' square grid with infinitely-thin walls.

[sithlordnergal]

I've considered adding a similar limitation to my 5E CRPG just to make implemention simpler--if you leave the map you're out of the combat--but I just can't stand what that does to tactics. It creates edge cases (literally and figurative) and allows tactics that don't belong in RPG-based combat. I feel compelled to make the battlespace expandable even though it's more complex to implement, in the same way I can't stand discretizing every building to a 5' x 5' square grid with infinitely-thin walls.

Oh yeah, it can allow for certain tactics to become prevalent, though I haven't really seen many weird edge cases with it in play. As for the expandable battlespace, I used to be on board with that. Till I ran into a player that purposely abused it by creating a Sharpshooter Rogue/Fighter that would never actually interact with anything. They made sure to get 200 feet away from combat whenever possible, and when they got into open areas spent the first round dashing/bonus action dashing away while being unwilling to aid their allies. It became annoying to myself and the other players.

[Segev]

I...just don't understand the problem. Visibility will come into play. But...whatever works for your games.

[MaxWilson]

Oh yeah, it can allow for certain tactics to become prevalent, though I haven't really seen many weird edge cases with it in play. As for the expandable battlespace, I used to be on board with that. Till I ran into a player that purposely abused it by creating a Sharpshooter Rogue/Fighter that would never actually interact with anything. They made sure to get 200 feet away from combat whenever possible, and when they got into open areas spent the first round dashing/bonus action dashing away while being unwilling to aid their allies. It became annoying to myself and the other players.

De gustibus non disputandum est, so if it annoyed you then it annoyed you and you don't have to explain why, but as for the rest of it... that sounds to me like he spent the first round getting ready to aid his allies by shooting at enemies, which... sounds like a way of interacting. Are you sure you aren't responsible for forcing him to inexplicably appear near the other PCs at the "start" of every combat when he would rather have been shadowing them from a distance so he didn't have to waste a round Dashing?

200 feet = 60 meters which isn't even particularly far. Shouting distance is 180 meters. Ref: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/farthest-distance-travelled-by-a-human-voice

[sithlordnergal]

De gustibus non disputandum est, so if it annoyed you then it annoyed you and you don't have to explain why, but as for the rest of it... that sounds to me like he spent the first round getting ready to aid his allies by shooting at enemies, which... sounds like a way of interacting. Are you sure you aren't responsible for forcing him to inexplicably appear near the other PCs at the "start" of every combat when he would rather have been shadowing them from a distance so he didn't have to waste a round Dashing?

200 feet = 60 meters which isn't even particularly far. Shouting distance is 180 meters. Ref: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/farthest-distance-travelled-by-a-human-voice

Ehhh, I can assure you that its less "aiding the party" and more trying to take advantage of stuff. This is a player where I have had to take to the side and issue a warning to because he tried to purposely cause a TPK by casting Summon Greater Demon, drop concentration, then cast is again while moving to a place where they would the least likely to be targeted by said demons due to the wording of the spell. They're the kind of player that would complain if they're targeted while standing 600 feet away because there might be one character 595 feet away

[Scarytincan]

Ehhh, I can assure you that its less "aiding the party" and more trying to take advantage of stuff. This is a player where I have had to take to the side and issue a warning to because he tried to purposely cause a TPK by casting Summon Greater Demon, drop concentration, then cast is again while moving to a place where they would the least likely to be targeted by said demons due to the wording of the spell. They're the kind of player that would complain if they're targeted while standing 600 feet away because there might be one character 595 feet away

Dropping concentration causes the spell to end and the demon to vanish harmlessly. Just in case something like that comes up again. They gotta break free on their own to stick around and go berserk.

[Witty Username]

The issue with the kensei monk was the fact that they get higher damage die early on. It's just a subtle, unflashy mechanic that would be subtly, and unflashily broken:

At level 3, most monks are doing 3d4 damage during a flurry, maybe 1d8+2d4 with a staff, while kensei can do 1d10+2d4 during a flurry
At level 5, most monks are doing 4d6 damage during a flurry, while kensei can do 2d10+2d6 during a flurry
Having them use their Kensei weapon on all attacks, with a max damage of d10, is effectively giving them their 17th level monk feature at level 5.


I would say it is a little different in practice, kensei will not be doing that much damage because of their agile parry feature. There is also, from my experience the monk has a tendency to lag behind other martial characters so this isn't an outlandish suggestion. Would I do it this way,am am not sure, I don't think so.

[sithlordnergal]

Dropping concentration causes the spell to end and the demon to vanish harmlessly. Just in case something like that comes up again. They gotta break free on their own to stick around and go berserk.

Ohhh, I misread that then. I failed to spot the uncontrolled bit.

[MaxWilson]

Ohhh, I misread that then. I failed to spot the uncontrolled bit.

Note that the spell doesn't say so explicitly: you have to get this interpretation off of Jeremy Crawford's Twitter feed or by careful parsing what the spell doesn't say.