Monk Weapons? Mildly Irksome.

[Phhase]

Monk Weapons are kinda weird to me. Sure, you could use them on a monk, and maybe get a slightly bigger damage die on a few attacks at early levels, but the lion's share of Monk features don't synergize with them, to the point that they feel kinda like a ribbon to me. Balance-wise, it's a simple matter to get the Unarmed fighting style at level 1 (Vhuman or Custom for Fighting Initiate) or a Fighter Dip at 2, giving you what is effectively dual wielding 1d8 melee weapons as a Monk, plus the grapple damage bonus. It just feels strange that nominally you're supposed to be able to play ninja-weapons fighting guy, but nothing you have really enables that (outside of edge cases with a musket and Ki-fuelled attack), and you'll almost invariably return to punch monke at some point. Hell, even Kensei, the "Weapon Monk Guy", has one of its flagship features be something that grants you an AC benefit if you deliberately don't use a weapon to attack. Am I missing something, or is this kinda off?

[Dork_Forge]

Monk Weapons are kinda weird to me. Sure, you could use them on a monk, and maybe get a slightly bigger damage die on a few attacks at early levels, but the lion's share of Monk features don't synergize with them, to the point that they feel kinda like a ribbon to me. Balance-wise, it's a simple matter to get the Unarmed fighting style at level 1 (Vhuman or Custom for Fighting Initiate) or a Fighter Dip at 2, giving you what is effectively dual wielding 1d8 melee weapons as a Monk, plus the grapple damage bonus. It just feels strange that nominally you're supposed to be able to play ninja-weapons fighting guy, but nothing you have really enables that (outside of edge cases with a musket and Ki-fuelled attack), and you'll almost invariably return to punch monke at some point. Hell, even Kensei, the "Weapon Monk Guy", has one of its flagship features be something that grants you an AC benefit if you deliberately don't use a weapon to attack. Am I missing something, or is this kinda off?

Monks can be entirely unarmed based, that is not the default. Arguably the default is a mix of weapons and unarmed combat, which mirrors the tropes and source material the class draws on.

If you're looking for what supports weapon use: The ability to use Dex, the scaling damage die, Extra Attack, Stunning Strike all support weapons.

In terms of explaining the Kensei's ability: mechanically it's because they wanted there to be a choice/cost to +2 AC. Thematically you're choosing to hold your weapon in a defensive stance and lashing out with limbs you can subsequently defend with said weapon.

[Unoriginal]

Am I missing something, or is this kinda off?

Well the thing to consider is that the weapon list was made years before the Unarmed Fighting Style.

Before the Tasha's, two-handing your Monk staff for the first (two) attack(s) and then using unarmed strike for Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows was a marked improvement for the low-level Monk's damage output compared to the other options available.


Monks can be entirely unarmed based, that is not the default. Arguably the default is a mix of weapons and unarmed combat, which mirrors the tropes and source material the class draws on.

If you're looking for what supports weapon use: The ability to use Dex, the scaling damage die, Extra Attack, Stunning Strike all support weapons.

Very true.

And post-Tasha's, if you have access to a weapon from another source you can use it as a Monk weapon, which can be pretty nice.

[JLandan]

Monk Weapons are kinda weird to me. Sure, you could use them on a monk, and maybe get a slightly bigger damage die on a few attacks at early levels, but the lion's share of Monk features don't synergize with them, to the point that they feel kinda like a ribbon to me. Balance-wise, it's a simple matter to get the Unarmed fighting style at level 1 (Vhuman or Custom for Fighting Initiate) or a Fighter Dip at 2, giving you what is effectively dual wielding 1d8 melee weapons as a Monk, plus the grapple damage bonus. It just feels strange that nominally you're supposed to be able to play ninja-weapons fighting guy, but nothing you have really enables that (outside of edge cases with a musket and Ki-fuelled attack), and you'll almost invariably return to punch monke at some point. Hell, even Kensei, the "Weapon Monk Guy", has one of its flagship features be something that grants you an AC benefit if you deliberately don't use a weapon to attack. Am I missing something, or is this kinda off?

I don't really understand your statement. Are you saying monk weapons are bad because they do more damage than unarmed strike at early levels?

Yes, you could get more unarmed strike damage from a feat or by multiclassing, but those are investments that have a cost. Choosing a feat either restricts your racial choice or uses an ASI opportunity. Multiclassing thins out your Ki potential and freezes out higher level features. Some people say the costs are worth it, some don't. They are viable options, but so is riding out the full class.

As to synergy with monk features; many monk features are not attack oriented, so they disqualify by definition. The ones that are attack oriented; Martial Arts, Stunning Strike, Extra Attack, all compatible with monk weapons. Flurry of Blows still can use a weapon for the initial attack, just the bonus attacks are unarmed strikes, so that one is a combination, but still weapon use. Ki Empowerment is unarmed strike only, but that's really the only attack oriented feature that is not compatible with monk weapons.

The Kensei feature Agile Parry is a defense maneuver that still allows an unarmed strike, not an actual attack maneuver. Every other feature (except the calligraphy) is weapon oriented.

What sucks, to me, is that to be really ninja, you should have Kensei and Shadow archetypes.

[Greywander]

Monk weapons have about as much synergy with monk features as unarmed strikes. As your Martial Arts die increases, the distinction between the two begins to blur. At least, until you get a magic weapon.

Monks have fallen victim to power creep somewhat. Things you use to only be able to get from the monk can now be gotten elsewhere. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it means monks aren't as special as they used to be. Monks need a bit of a buff.

I agree that the Kensei design is a bit baffling. If anything, I would have expected them to be able to replace their BA unarmed strike with a weapon attack, but they decided to go the other way instead and encourage you not to use weapons to get that AC bonus. I mean, at least it's a bonus for not using a weapon and not a penalty for using a weapon. It does make sense to give them some kind of AC bonus, but that isn't how I would have done it.

[Phhase]

Monks can be entirely unarmed based, that is not the default. Arguably the default is a mix of weapons and unarmed combat, which mirrors the tropes and source material the class draws on.

If you're looking for what supports weapon use: The ability to use Dex, the scaling damage die, Extra Attack, Stunning Strike all support weapons.

In terms of explaining the Kensei's ability: mechanically it's because they wanted there to be a choice/cost to +2 AC. Thematically you're choosing to hold your weapon in a defensive stance and lashing out with limbs you can subsequently defend with said weapon.

Stunning Strike I'll grant, but what I'm getting at is that while Dex, the scaling, and the extra attack are all weapon-compatible, they're also unarmed strike compatible, which somewhat disqualifies them as weapon selling points to me at least. What I'm mostly irritated about is that things like the ascendant dragon's damage conversion, and flurry of blows don't work with weapons, when it seems to me there's no major reason for them not to, given the limitations on weapons in any case. What breaks if Monks get to Flurry with a weapon?

I do concede Unarmed Fighting has an opportunity cost, it just bugs me that it's an option that seems to easily mirror some of what using a weapon could do without the limitations. I guess it bothers me that the class forces you to mix flavor if you want to be a weapon-using monk, or else lose out on so many core features of the class.

[Saelethil]

I feel like Dork Forge is right in that the intention of the Kensei ability is supposed to represent taking a defensive stage with your weapon while still being able to throw an elbow or kick. What might have worked better is something like:

Defensive Stance
When you take the Dodge action or use Patient Defense and you are wielding a melee weapon, your AC increases by 2 until the start of your next turn.


Is this too much? Maybe, probably not. It would have to be play tested.

[Greywander]

I feel like Dork Forge is right in that the intention of the Kensei ability is supposed to represent taking a defensive stage with your weapon while still being able to throw an elbow or kick.
I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

[JLandan]

Stunning Strike I'll grant, but what I'm getting at is that while Dex, the scaling, and the extra attack are all weapon-compatible, they're also unarmed strike compatible, which somewhat disqualifies them as weapon selling points to me at least. What I'm mostly irritated about is that things like the ascendant dragon's damage conversion, and flurry of blows don't work with weapons, when it seems to me there's no major reason for them not to, given the limitations on weapons in any case. What breaks if Monks get to Flurry with a weapon?

I do concede Unarmed Fighting has an opportunity cost, it just bugs me that it's an option that seems to easily mirror some of what using a weapon could do without the limitations. I guess it bothers me that the class forces you to mix flavor if you want to be a weapon-using monk, or else lose out on so many core features of the class.

I don't think monk weapons with Flurry breaks, but it does empower. Are you speaking from a player or DM perspective? If you're DM, go ahead and allow it, what the hell. If you're the player, check with the DM, maybe you'll get a go-ahead.

Remember: Flurry with Extra Attack is FOUR attacks.

Bear in mind too, that if the monk goes Kensei, the monk weapon restrictions are a lot more open and include longbow. Dedicated weapon opens it up a bit too, if you play this option; it still has a proficiency requirement.

[x3n0n]

I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

Having played a straight-classed Kensei up through level 8 (pre-Tasha's), I agree that this was really annoying at Monk levels 3 and 4. It was much less annoying at Monk 5, and seems like it would feel a bit better now that one can trigger Ki-Fueled Attack (with any of Focused Aim, Stunning Strike, or Deft Strike) and use the melee kensei weapon 2 of 3 times in a turn and still benefit from Agile Parry.

[Phhase]

I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

Yes, exactly that. I love reflavoring, it's an excellent tool, but I want to believe that it's not too hard an ask for the mechanics and the flavor to support each other rather than be somewhat at odds.

Apropos of weapons and Flurry, it really is just that one change away from opening up so many rapid-attack-based fighting archetypes, from the whirling dervish in melee, to fanning the hammer of a revolver as a gunslinger, to throwing a blizzard of shuriken as a, well, monk.

[Segev]

I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

I have actively seen people who want to play Kensei decide against it for this very reason.

[Dork_Forge]

Stunning Strike I'll grant, but what I'm getting at is that while Dex, the scaling, and the extra attack are all weapon-compatible, they're also unarmed strike compatible, which somewhat disqualifies them as weapon selling points to me at least. What I'm mostly irritated about is that things like the ascendant dragon's damage conversion, and flurry of blows don't work with weapons, when it seems to me there's no major reason for them not to, given the limitations on weapons in any case. What breaks if Monks get to Flurry with a weapon?

I never said they were selling points, I said they were ways in which the class supported weapon use. The fact that it supports both at the same time is good design for what was intended from the class.

Ascendant Dragon's conversion doesn't work because it is a subclass that niches away from weapons.

Flurry doesn't because it's leaning into those fast precise strikes you see in martial arts media, which is usually unarmed.


I do concede Unarmed Fighting has an opportunity cost, it just bugs me that it's an option that seems to easily mirror some of what using a weapon could do without the limitations. I guess it bothers me that the class forces you to mix flavor if you want to be a weapon-using monk, or else lose out on so many core features of the class.

I can understand the frustration of mixing them if you only want to do one, but unless the Monk becomes a subclass at 1st level class, then that's just how it has to be. Would be a neat homebrew experiment though.


I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

Think of it this way:

You can use a weapon to attack.

Kensei can use a weapon to attack and defend themselves. The AC bump is a use of the weapon, and one that others cannot do outside of the defensive duelist feat.

[JLandan]

I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

The kensei is using the weapon. He's using it to parry.

[Phhase]

I never said they were selling points, I said they were ways in which the class supported weapon use. The fact that it supports both at the same time is good design for what was intended from the class.

Right, and what I was getting at is that just because the design supports it in a technical sense, doesn't mean it encourages, or to me, sufficiently rewards it, proportional to how it affects unarmed strikes.


Ascendant Dragon's conversion doesn't work because it is a subclass that niches away from weapons.

I contest that it niches away from weapons needlessly exactly because the conversion doesn't work. If it did, it could simultaneously support the archetype of elemental warrior/savant that I feel is sorely lacking, without compromising on the original overmuch.


Flurry doesn't because it's leaning into those fast precise strikes you see in martial arts media, which is usually unarmed.

There's a lot of media. I don't deny the validity of the archetype you refer to, I'm just wondering why it's focused on such a defined slice when it seems already so close to other adjacent archetypes, but for one sticking point.


I can understand the frustration of mixing them if you only want to do one, but unless the Monk becomes a subclass at 1st level class, then that's just how it has to be. Would be a neat homebrew experiment though.

I...don't understand what you're getting at here? How does becoming a 1st level subclass class factor in here?

[Chaos Jackal]

There's the view/expectation that monks should be unarmed, or that you're playing monk because you wanna be unarmed. But for one, that's a matter of taste, and also, unarmed strikes are still part of the monk even if you do use weapons (Martial Arts and Flurry only use unarmed strikes, after all). Ultimately, it is a martial arts class, and plenty of martial arts use weapons. Reasonably too; weapons are better than fists, after all.

A benefit of monk weapons, throughout all levels, is the wider availability of magic items supporting that style, both in printed material and what is likely to pop in your given game. That goes both for static bonuses as well as additional effects. Unarmed strikes just don't get much in the way of support (though in TCE at least they received some nice tattoos) and even if DMs cater to you by including one of the existent items or by homebrewing some magical knuckles or whatever, odds are there will probably be a lot more stuff in terms of actual weapons, and more easily accessible too.

Then, you have the whole ranged attacks thing. Unarmed strikes won't cover you there. Bows will.

Also, it takes until lv11 for unarmed strikes to reach the damage of a quarterstaff, and until lv17 to overcome it. If the monk is an elf or some other race with weapon proficiencies, or has a level of fighter or whatever, and Dedicated Weapon is in play, then even at lv17 unarmed strikes won't overtake longswords. 11 levels are already plenty; 17 is the majority of the game.

Monk weapons are far from a ribbon. For at least half the game, they outdamage unarmed strikes, more if you get additional proficiencies from somewhere, and they only get outdamaged for the last four levels, or never with said proficiencies. They open up wider access to magic items. And they do these things without really losing out on anything the monk offers; sure, you can't use them in the Martial Arts or Flurry attacks, but it's not like they restrict access to the features or anything. They boost and/or complement the monk's suite. It can be something small, like a slightly bigger damage die, or something much bigger like a strong magic weapon with impressive effects (like a Kensei with an Oathbow). They're not the greatest thing the monk gets, but they have clear uses.

[Dork_Forge]

Right, and what I was getting at is that just because the design supports it in a technical sense, doesn't mean it encourages, or to me, sufficiently rewards it, proportional to how it affects unarmed strikes.

If it rewarded it in a proportional manner, then weapon use would still be much better, because it is by default. Unarmed Strikes are elevated by Monk features, whereas weapon use is given support so they end up somewhat on par.


I contest that it niches away from weapons needlessly exactly because the conversion doesn't work. If it did, it could simultaneously support the archetype of elemental warrior/savant that I feel is sorely lacking, without compromising on the original overmuch.

Could they do it with weapons with no downside? Sure, but the point of the subclass is imitating a dragon and most dragons don't use any weapon that isn't a part of their body.

If you want an elemental warrior, then arguably that's a subclass that doesn't wholly exist yet, but can be partially touched upon in many ways. For example, the Drakewarden Ranger.


There's a lot of media. I don't deny the validity of the archetype you refer to, I'm just wondering why it's focused on such a defined slice when it seems already so close to other adjacent archetypes, but for one sticking point.

The core class goes for a compromise/mix, so that subclasses can further refine and define.


I...don't understand what you're getting at here? How does becoming a 1st level subclass class factor in here?

When a class gains a subclass at 1st level you have greater power to shape how that class functions in an organic way. Look at the Artificer: Each one plays drastically different, but that all happens rather suddenly at 3rd level because that's when they get their subclass. If that happened at 1st level, the difference would always be there.

In this example, the Monk would lean into unarmed strikes, weapon use, or a mix, more or less based on that level one subclass choice.

[Segev]

The kensei is using the weapon. He's using it to parry.

Except that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon he's using, because "using it to parry" is the same +2 bonus to AC, regardless. Which means that it doesn't contribute to the flavor. It doesn't matter what his kensei weapon is. It could be a normal monk weapon. There's nothing stand-out about him as a monk who uses an unusual weapon, or as a master of this particular weapon. The only time he feels like his weapon choice matters is when he gets the advantages this chosen weapon offers over normal monk weapons or unarmed strikes, and this class feature explicitly tells him that he may not use it in the way that makes his weapon choice matter if he's to benefit from this class feature.

Or, as my friend has put it, "My only class feature at level 3 is one that tells me that my swordmaster must refrain from using his sword and use a weaker attack that any monk who is not a swordmaster can use in order to use my class feature."

It's bad design from a "feel" standpoint. It makes you feel like you're punished for using your kensei weapon.

People don't play "master of this weapon" to get...a shield.

[Phhase]

There's the view/expectation that monks should be unarmed, or that you're playing monk because you wanna be unarmed. But for one, that's a matter of taste, and also, unarmed strikes are still part of the monk even if you do use weapons (Martial Arts and Flurry only use unarmed strikes, after all). Ultimately, it is a martial arts class, and plenty of martial arts use weapons. Reasonably too; weapons are better than fists, after all.

Emphasis mine. Yeah, that pretty much summarizes my gripes (Green text for a fair tempering point). Why does getting the most out of my [weapon] invariably involve punching (using punching as an example of an unarmed strike, I'm aware kicks, headbutts, body slams, elbows, and the like are all options for flavor)?



A benefit of monk weapons, throughout all levels, is the wider availability of magic items supporting that style, both in printed material and what is likely to pop in your given game. That goes both for static bonuses as well as additional effects. Unarmed strikes just don't get much in the way of support (though in TCE at least they received some nice tattoos) and even if DMs cater to you by including one of the existent items or by homebrewing some magical knuckles or whatever, odds are there will probably be a lot more stuff in terms of actual weapons, and more easily accessible too.

That's fair, and for the record, I do have gripes about the reverse situation: I wanted to play a Battle Master/Monk so I could do all sorts of tactical martial arts moves and judo throws and stuff, only to promptly realize the majority of maneuvers require one to be using a weapon (yes I'm aware shove attempts are pretty analogous to unarmed throws in principle, it's just a generalization). And the point on item support is also valid.

EDIT TO PREVENT DOUBLEPOST


If it rewarded it in a proportional manner, then weapon use would still be much better, because it is by default. Unarmed Strikes are elevated by Monk features, whereas weapon use is given support so they end up somewhat on par.

This is true, but I guess I fall on the side of both styles having something nice and being able to visit each other, even if one is better, to be more favorable than both having to share one mediocre house with no privacy, but that's just me (and my unnecessarily obtuse metaphors).



Could they do it with weapons with no downside? Sure, but the point of the subclass is imitating a dragon and most dragons don't use any weapon that isn't a part of their body.

That my be true, but on the other hand, I don't imagine the point of the subclass is also to reject one's human(oid) qualities and advantages, at least in exclusivity.


If you want an elemental warrior, then arguably that's a subclass that doesn't wholly exist yet, but can be partially touched upon in many ways. For example, the Drakewarden Ranger.

I'd argue that drakewarden departs even further from the elemental warrior theme, given that the draconic flavor is explicitly enforced by its core mechanic of literally having a dragon companion. I fully acknowledge I'm nitpicking at this point, though.


The core class goes for a compromise/mix, so that subclasses can further refine and define.

Right, but given that Monk's subclasses are at least somewhat broadly regarded as the worst for various reasons [citation needed], I posit this might be as much an issue with the base as what lies atop it. A flexible base that can be built upon is more or less the design philosophy of every class, hell even 5E as a whole. My point here is that this instance could stand to be more flexible.



When a class gains a subclass at 1st level you have greater power to shape how that class functions in an organic way. Look at the Artificer: Each one plays drastically different, but that all happens rather suddenly at 3rd level because that's when they get their subclass. If that happened at 1st level, the difference would always be there.

In this example, the Monk would lean into unarmed strikes, weapon use, or a mix, more or less based on that level one subclass choice.
You're hardly incorrect, I just wasn't thinking about potential fixes at all in that vein. My thoughts were more centered on what might happen if one simply allowed the use of a monk weapon in more or less any case that previously mandated an unarmed strike.


Except that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon he's using, because "using it to parry" is the same +2 bonus to AC, regardless. Which means that it doesn't contribute to the flavor. It doesn't matter what his kensei weapon is. It could be a normal monk weapon. There's nothing stand-out about him as a monk who uses an unusual weapon, or as a master of this particular weapon. The only time he feels like his weapon choice matters is when he gets the advantages this chosen weapon offers over normal monk weapons or unarmed strikes, and this class feature explicitly tells him that he may not use it in the way that makes his weapon choice matter if he's to benefit from this class feature.

Or, as my friend has put it, "My only class feature at level 3 is one that tells me that my swordmaster must refrain from using his sword and use a weaker attack that any monk who is not a swordmaster can use in order to use my class feature."

It's bad design from a "feel" standpoint. It makes you feel like you're punished for using your kensei weapon.

People don't play "master of this weapon" to get...a shield.

Right, precisely. You can put the words in any order you wish, but it doesn't change the reality of the mechanics. Ideally to me, the weapon that one chooses to use should matter when used by the features of the "Weapon Guy" subclass. Yes, using the weapon to block is technically a use of the weapon. But what you're blocking with is entirely immaterial, which to me is a bad design choice for a class that supposedly makes what you use more interesting and important. Mechanics have a duty to flavor as much as the inverse.

[kazaryu]

Monk Weapons are kinda weird to me. Sure, you could use them on a monk, and maybe get a slightly bigger damage die on a few attacks at early levels, but the lion's share of Monk features don't synergize with them, to the point that they feel kinda like a ribbon to me. Balance-wise, it's a simple matter to get the Unarmed fighting style at level 1 (Vhuman or Custom for Fighting Initiate) or a Fighter Dip at 2, giving you what is effectively dual wielding 1d8 melee weapons as a Monk, plus the grapple damage bonus. It just feels strange that nominally you're supposed to be able to play ninja-weapons fighting guy, but nothing you have really enables that (outside of edge cases with a musket and Ki-fuelled attack), and you'll almost invariably return to punch monke at some point. Hell, even Kensei, the "Weapon Monk Guy", has one of its flagship features be something that grants you an AC benefit if you deliberately don't use a weapon to attack. Am I missing something, or is this kinda off?

so....im confused...part of why you don't like monk weapons is due to a feature that...didn't exist when the monk weapons thing was written? unarmed fighting style is very new.

i know that wasn't all of your complaints, but...yeah, monk weapons was always a ribbon feature. the core monk feature is martial arts. The monk weapons stuff is so that you're not forced to play unarmed. you can play a monk with a weapon, or without, and it changes basically nothing. it also means that you are able to use magic weapons, poisoned weapons, or use oils to boost your mundane weapons (none of which you can technically use with unarmed strikes).

basically, monks don't need any special reward for using weapons instead of their fists. let players choose how their monk prefers to fight

[Phhase]

so....im confused...part of why you don't like monk weapons is due to a feature that...didn't exist when the monk weapons thing was written? unarmed fighting style is very new.

I know that wasn't all of your complaints, but...yeah, monk weapons was always a ribbon feature. the core monk feature is martial arts. The monk weapons stuff is so that you're not forced to play unarmed. you can play a monk with a weapon, or without, and it changes basically nothing. it also means that you are able to use magic weapons, poisoned weapons, or use oils to boost your mundane weapons (none of which you can technically use with unarmed strikes).


First bullet is valid, I get it. But, it exists now, so it has to mean something.

...yes? I don't disagree with any of that.



basically, monks don't need any special reward for using weapons instead of their fists. let players choose how their monk prefers to fight

It may not have been clear, but...this was, in fact, exactly my point? More or less? I'm not asking for any special reward for using weapons, I'm just asking to be able to use them at all in certain scenarios? Specifically to better support choosing...how one's monk prefers to fight. Not all monks punch things. I just don't want to be pigeonholed into always having to use unarmed attacks if I want to use class and subclass features like Flurry instead of the weapon my monk has nominally dedicated themselves to learning and using.

[kazaryu]

First bullet is valid, I get it. But, it exists now, so it has to mean something.

...yes? I don't disagree with any of that.
i mean...i'd like to see older material redesigned based on updated design philosophy, but there's no reason to update monks over any of the other things that have become somewhat outdated because they decided to ignore original design philosophy.



It may not have been clear, but...this was, in fact, exactly my point? More or less? I'm not asking for any special reward for using weapons, I'm just asking to be able to use them at all in certain scenarios? Specifically to better support choosing...how one's monk prefers to fight. Not all monks punch things. I just don't want to be pigeonholed into always having to use unarmed attacks if I want to use class and subclass features like Flurry instead of the weapon my monk has nominally dedicated themselves to learning and using.

you don't have to fight unarmed in order to use flurry...IIRC the only features that specifically require you to be unarmed are subclass features...for subclasses that are specifically meant to be unarmed specialists. like open-fist.

only the flurry of blows *has* to be unarmed strikes, but you can still use weapons for your main attacks. unarmed strikes don't have to be with your fists.

the only core monk feature that even remotely forces you to not be holding weapons is deflect missiles...but thats only if you want to catch/throw enemy weapons back at them. the actual damage reduction part doesn't require an open hand.

idk, it sounds like what you really want is to be able to flurry of blows with a weapon? i assume the reason they avoided doing that, is so that monks can't proc weapon enchantments (like elemental weapon, holy weapon (was that a phb spell? idk...), or...obviously permanent magic weapon enhancements, that many times in a round, at that level. Im not saying it would be crazy broken if they could, but thats probably the reason for the design, and IMO its a valid reason.

[Hytheter]

What breaks if Monks get to Flurry with a weapon?

It's a non-negligible damage increase, especially if you can use a Longsword with Dedicated Weapon or Kensei. And it's a rather considerable damage increase with a strong magic weapon like a Flametongue. Is it broken? I don't know, but it's definitely impactful.


I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

Not only that but the 'defensive stance' flavour doesn't even really make sense anyway. You can only use it while actively attacking, but not while taking any other actions - you're telling me I can't use my sword to defend myself when I'm standing still and using the dodge action but I can while kicking a dude in the head four times? Hell, it needs to be an unarmed strike in particular so you can't even stab someone with a dagger while using a sword to parry. But if you punch them instead suddenly you can parry with the sword while also making an attack with it (if you have extra attack)? How does that make any sense?

[Leon]

I understand the fluff, what doesn't make sense are the mechanics. It's a monk subclass designed around using weapons getting a bonus for not using a weapon.

Many people getting tied up on a Weapon master only being about fighting better with weapons...

[Phhase]

i mean...i'd like to see older material redesigned based on updated design philosophy, but there's no reason to update monks over any of the other things that have become somewhat outdated because they decided to ignore original design philosophy.

I've often heard that Monk suffers a chronic lack of Getting Nice Things, as opposed to Wizard or Cleric who often get cool stuff.


you don't have to fight unarmed in order to use flurry...IIRC the only features that specifically require you to be unarmed are subclass features...for subclasses that are specifically meant to be unarmed specialists. like open-fist.

only the flurry of blows *has* to be unarmed strikes, but you can still use weapons for your main attacks.

idk, it sounds like what you really want is to be able to flurry of blows with a weapon?

I may not have been clear enough but...yes. Yes, that's been core to my gripe this entire time. Literally that, and assorted subclass botherations. Open Hand doesn't bother me though, it's in the name, it's in the theme, all is well.


unarmed strikes don't have to be with your fists.

????
I don't understand what you're getting at? To quote myself in an earlier post: "Why does getting the most out of my [weapon] invariably involve punching (using punching as an example of an unarmed strike, I'm aware kicks, headbutts, body slams, elbows, and the like are all options for flavor)?" :smalleek:



the only core monk feature that even remotely forces you to not be holding weapons is deflect missiles...but thats only if you want to catch/throw enemy weapons back at them. the actual damage reduction part doesn't require an open hand.

Interesting note!


i assume the reason they avoided doing that, is so that monks can't proc weapon enchantments (like elemental weapon, holy weapon (was that a phb spell? idk...), or...obviously permanent magic weapon enhancements, that many times in a round, at that level. I'm not saying it would be crazy broken if they could, but thats probably the reason for the design, and IMO its a valid reason.
I guess, I just think that maybe this could be the Nice Thing Monks get to bring them up to snuff, given that it enables more Interesting Ideas for character building.


Many people getting tied up on a Weapon master only being about fighting better with weapons...
Or, put another way, people getting tied up that a nominal Weapon Master isn't more about fighting better with weapons.

[kazaryu]

I've often heard that Monk suffers a chronic lack of Getting Nice Things, as opposed to Wizard or Cleric who often get cool stuff. im not talking about just numbers and direct power. like, yeah twilight cleric is busted as all hell. but im talking about general design things. the hexblade is the biggest example of this, it depart from (apparent) previous design principles in 2 ways.
the first: cha based attacks on any weapon. so now the easiest way to lay a gish is to be a full caster. half casters and thrid casters can **** themselves. Let them stay MAD, but nah, the warlock...thats the one that shouldn't have to trade anything off. But, ok, if we're gonna let gishes go SAD like that, why not all of them? or at least the ones that are already fairly MAD.

the second: direct power that scales based on character level instead of class level. yup, hexblades curse. why does it scale based on proficiency bonus? why did they not do the same thing they did with similar features in all the classes they appeared in (i.e. having it upgrade at specific class levels). look at things like: barbarian rage damage, battlemaster superiority dice damage, monk martial arts die, bardic inspiration dice, etc. in some of those scenarios you could get some horizontal growth independent of class level for example you could get MORE inspiration dice even without level. but the actual effectiveness of the dice stayed static unless you leveled bard. Hexblade reverses this: now its direct effectiveness scales with character level, and it grows horizontally based on class level (i.e. you can reassign it, you can teleport to your target, etc. ).

those are the types of things i'd like to see prevous class/subclass features redesigned to match.





I don't understand what you're getting at? To quote myself in an earlier post: "Why does getting the most out of my [weapon] invariably involve punching (using punching as an example of an unarmed strike, I'm aware kicks, headbutts, body slams, elbows, and the like are all options for flavor)?"
thats part of playing the monk :shrug: if you want to play a weapon expert, play a fighter, thats the class that is meant to appeal to that archetype. i don't remember who, but someone on this forum did a nice job of explaining that 5e classes aren't about letting you play as any hyper specific character you can possibly think of. they're designed around archetypes. the monk archetype involves mixing in highly effective unarmed strikes alongside your weapon attacks. Its the same reason why, if i wanna play a super nerd, i *can* go rogue, and use my expertise' in all the knowledge skills. boost int, all that stuff. now it know alot. but i also have to deal with the fact that, for some reason, i know thieves cant. and im good at stabbing people in JUST the right place. and im extra nimble. if you're trying to play outside of the archetypes that *are* specifically supported by a given class, you're gonna have to deal with some mechanical weirdness.

the 'weapon expert' archetype is the fighter. that doesn't mean you can't play a 'weapon expert' as a monk. but if you're going to, you have to deal with the fact that that isn't what the monk is designed to be.



I guess, I just think that maybe this could be the Nice Thing Monks get to bring them up to snuff, given that it enables more Interesting Ideas for character building.


i don't really see how it enables more character builds, unless you include magic items as part of character builds (which, imo, is a bit weird considering 5e's assumptions about magic items). you can still use a weapon one way or another, and especially past a certain level, your monk weapons and unarmed strikes are dealing the same damage. So the only difference it makes (outside of magic items) is flavor.

with all that said: as i mentioned earlier, idk if it would be all that broken to allow it, especially if your monk isn't wielding a weapon with an on-hit effect. i just don't think its neccesary

[Dork_Forge]

Or, put another way, people getting tied up that a nominal Weapon Master isn't more about fighting better with weapons.

Fighting isn't just attacking, whilst I understand the surface logic that makes people go wut... it makes sense that an individual trained to a high degree with a weapon are more proficient with defending themselves from blows with it. It's the entire point of the Defensive Duelist feat, except instead of parrying, your very stance is what is denying them openings to strike.

Otherwise, the Kensei gets bonus damage to ranged weapons, a Smite like ability, makes their weapons magical, can make them +x weapons etc. They ARE weapon masters, they're just not glass cannons and show that wielding a weapon isn't entirely about swinging it at the nearest meatbag.

[Phhase]

im not talking about just numbers and direct power. like, yeah twilight cleric is busted as all hell. but im talking about general design things. the hexblade is the biggest example of this, it depart from (apparent) previous design principles in 2 ways.

Neither am I. I like the added numerical power, my main sticking point is more about having to compromise on theming if I want to have both, when the change seems like such a simple thing. I concede Hexblade is a bit aberrant.



thats part of playing the monk :shrug: if you want to play a weapon expert, play a fighter, thats the class that is meant to appeal to that archetype.

i don't remember who, but someone on this forum did a nice job of explaining that 5e classes aren't about letting you play as any hyper specific character you can possibly think of. they're designed around archetypes. the monk archetype involves mixing in highly effective unarmed strikes alongside your weapon attacks. Its the same reason why, if i wanna play a super nerd, i *can* go rogue, and use my expertise' in all the knowledge skills. boost int, all that stuff. now it know alot. but i also have to deal with the fact that, for some reason, i know thieves cant. and im good at stabbing people in JUST the right place. and im extra nimble. if you're trying to play outside of the archetypes that *are* specifically supported by a given class, you're gonna have to deal with some mechanical weirdness.

the 'weapon expert' archetype is the fighter. that doesn't mean you can't play a 'weapon expert' as a monk. but if you're going to, you have to deal with the fact that that isn't what the monk is designed to be.

We clearly have different view on what Monk is supposed to be, then. Personally, I don't think what I'm talking about is a huge ask or a far cry from Monk's identity/archetype. Hell, the only reason it bothers me, and the reason I'm bringing it up at all is the fact that I think it's so close thematically.

And as an aside, I'm not saying I necessarily want to play a weapon master Monk. Again, I'm not asking for extra gravy for weapon users, just for the use of them to be less of a flavor compromise. There are plenty of martial arts that involve weapons and don't involve unarmed strikes. This, to me, isn't "any hyper specific character I can possibly think of", this is "agile martial arts guy who makes bursts of weapon attacks", featuring things like shuriken, katana (longsword), nunchucks, etc, and not fists. That sounds like Monk to me.



i don't really see how it enables more character builds,

Off the top of my head: Whirling dervish (blade in each hand, potentially using Drunken Master to weave through the fight in a flurry of blades), assassin flinging double handfuls of poisoned shuriken or kunai, rapid-fire bowman, iajutsu mater that draws a sword into a blur of attacks...you get the idea. Allowing weapon flurries doubles down on the rapid-attacks and dual-wielding flavors, which I feel are underserved but entirely inside monk's domain.


unless you include magic items as part of character builds (which, imo, is a bit weird considering 5e's assumptions about magic items).

I am not.


you can still use a weapon one way or another, and especially past a certain level, your monk weapons and unarmed strikes are dealing the same damage. So the only difference it makes (outside of magic items) is flavor.

Yes, the mechanics informing the flavor is precisely my issue here. You hit the nail on the head.


Fighting isn't just attacking, whilst I understand the surface logic that makes people go wut... it makes sense that an individual trained to a high degree with a weapon are more proficient with defending themselves from blows with it. It's the entire point of the Defensive Duelist feat, except instead of parrying, your very stance is what is denying them openings to strike.

Otherwise, the Kensei gets bonus damage to ranged weapons, a Smite like ability, makes their weapons magical, can make them +x weapons etc. They ARE weapon masters, they're just not glass cannons and show that wielding a weapon isn't entirely about swinging it at the nearest meatbag.

I think it's less about having a defensive ability period and more about having an ability that seems to shoehorn unarmed strikes into a class that is supposed to be about using other weapons.

[Greywander]

I think there's a few related by different points being raised in this thread. Let me see if I can lay them out so we're not talking past each other about different points.

1. Now that the Unarmed Fighting style exists, low level monks have lackluster unarmed combat.

It's fair to point out that Unarmed Fighting didn't exist when the base monk class was written. The BA attack does give a monk the edge over a fighter with the fighting style, but a monk who dips fighter for the fighting style gets a not inconsequential boost at low levels. At higher levels, the fighting style becomes all but obsolete (unless you're into grappling), but few campaigns actually get that far. If you wanted to play a primarily unarmed monk, the class doesn't support you well at the low levels, and then falls behind at higher levels when magic weapons become available. Note that this is about unarmed-only monks; if you're okay using weapons, low level monks are pretty decent.

Monks have also been considered slightly underpowered for a while. And yet, people continue to play them because they are a pretty fun class. So it is possible that they only look underpowered on paper. That said, a slight boost to their Martial Arts die would probably help assuage the feelings of being underpowered without compromising the balance of the class.

Another option I've considered when working on homebrew revisions for the monk is adding both STR and DEX mod to unarmed damage (and potentially attack rolls). However, because monks are already MAD this probably isn't a great option. It also makes STR-boosting magic items disproportionately strong on a monk. Giving monks extra ASIs could make this more appealing.

2. Generic monks have poor support for using monk weapons.

Your BA attack must be an unarmed strike. Flurry of Blows must be a pair of unarmed strikes. Monk is weirdly split conceptually between a kung fu master and a weapon user. As noted above, using only unarmed strikes isn't a great idea at lower levels, where your weapons will deal more damage, and then at higher levels this continues to be true if you happen to get your hands on a magic weapon. At the same time, you're still required to use unarmed strikes for you BA attacks, so playing a pure weapon user isn't an option either.

This did improve with Ki-Fueled Attack, but it's reliant on having spent ki, and a lot of things you spend ki on already use your BA. Not only is it limited use, but the things that could trigger it use the same type of action, making them mutually exclusive. It's far from useless, but it does feel like a halfway fix.

There's a little more to this, though. Part of the issue presented in the OP is that there just isn't a compelling reason to use monk weapons after a certain point. Magic weapons aside, your Martial Arts die equalized the damage between your weapons and your unarmed strikes, so there isn't much point in even carrying a weapon when you can just punch everything. YMMV on whether this is an issue; some people might like having the freedom to use the aesthetics of a weapon user or unarmed striker without sacrificing any of their competence. What might make sense, and what could give the monk a bit of extra oomph, might be to give two different bonuses, one for using an unarmed strike and one for using a weapon. Both are still equally viable, but you may like one or the other better. This at least would give you a mechanical reason to choose to use weapons or to be unarmed-only.

3. Kensei use their weapons less than a generic monk.

I feel like this should be self-explanatory, but I guess I need to explain it. Holding a weapon is not using it. Agile Parry doesn't care what kind of kensei weapon you're holding; you get the same outcome whether it is a dagger or a longsword. The whole point of the Kensei was getting access to a broader variety of weapons, including weapons with higher damage or reach or longer range, and yet none of those have any bearing on Agile Parry.

Baring some exceptions, the only way to use a weapon is to attack with it. Again, holding a weapon is not using it. People play Kensei to get access to an expanded list of weapons. They want to use those weapons. That means they want to attack with those weapons. The Kensei ends up using their weapons about half as often as a generic monk. It's a baffling design decision.

Here's an idea: replace Agile Parry with Defensive Duelist, but it works with any monk/kensei weapon, not just finesse weapons. Now you get to make as many weapon attacks as other monks, and have a way to boost your AC by defending yourself with your weapon. That's not the only possible solution, I merely present this as a way you could retain the flavor of defending yourself with your weapon without cutting the number of weapon attacks in half.

The other half of the problem is that discussed in the second point above: Kensei want to be using their weapons instead of making unarmed strikes. It's a problem for generic monks who may want to focus on being weapon users without being Kensei, but it's especially a problem for Kensei specifically. Letting Kensei make their BA attack with a weapon instead of an unarmed strike would be a definite buff, but it would be a buff to a subclass that is considered especially weak. Allowing them to use weapons for Flurry of Blows could be quite strong, but unlike a fighter they can't sustain that level of damage output indefinitely.

The Kensei has a lot of problems, and there are a lot of potential solutions. Not all of them are good, and not everyone is likely to agree on which solutions are the good ones.

Hopefully that covers the major points being discussed. In summary:

Monks are bad at being unarmed-only because at low levels, weapons or Unarmed Fighting style are better, and at high levels, magic weapons are better.
Monks are bad at being weapon-only because their BA attacks must use unarmed strikes, and at high levels there isn't a meaningful distinction between the two.
Kensei are bad at using weapons because they can still only make unarmed strikes with their BA, and they make half as many weapon strikes with their action.

[Keltest]

As far as Agile Parry goes, its a feature that allows you to use what is functionally a shield as a monk. I feel like people talking about wanting to use exclusively melee weapons without having unarmed strike involved at all are kind of just complaining that they didnt pick "fighter" as their class. Which is fine, ive been of the opinion that Monk should be a fighter subclass rather than its own class since forever. But if you want to play a weapon master character who doesnt use unarmed strike at all, play a barbarian or a fighter. A monk incorporates their entire body into their fighting style, i think its frankly silly to complain about being unable to separate the fundamental fantasy of the class from its function. You arent just a fighter who wears a robe, even when you have a sword in hand or whatever, you still weaponize your body.

[Phhase]

I think there's a few related by different points being raised in this thread. Let me see if I can lay them out so we're not talking past each other about different points.

1. Now that the Unarmed Fighting style exists, low level monks have lackluster unarmed combat.

It's fair to point out that Unarmed Fighting didn't exist when the base monk class was written. The BA attack does give a monk the edge over a fighter with the fighting style, but a monk who dips fighter for the fighting style gets a not inconsequential boost at low levels. At higher levels, the fighting style becomes all but obsolete (unless you're into grappling), but few campaigns actually get that far. If you wanted to play a primarily unarmed monk, the class doesn't support you well at the low levels, and then falls behind at higher levels when magic weapons become available. Note that this is about unarmed-only monks; if you're okay using weapons, low level monks are pretty decent.

Monks have also been considered slightly underpowered for a while. And yet, people continue to play them because they are a pretty fun class. So it is possible that they only look underpowered on paper. That said, a slight boost to their Martial Arts die would probably help assuage the feelings of being underpowered without compromising the balance of the class.

Another option I've considered when working on homebrew revisions for the monk is adding both STR and DEX mod to unarmed damage (and potentially attack rolls). However, because monks are already MAD this probably isn't a great option. It also makes STR-boosting magic items disproportionately strong on a monk. Giving monks extra ASIs could make this more appealing.

2. Generic monks have poor support for using monk weapons.

Your BA attack must be an unarmed strike. Flurry of Blows must be a pair of unarmed strikes. Monk is weirdly split conceptually between a kung fu master and a weapon user. As noted above, using only unarmed strikes isn't a great idea at lower levels, where your weapons will deal more damage, and then at higher levels this continues to be true if you happen to get your hands on a magic weapon. At the same time, you're still required to use unarmed strikes for you BA attacks, so playing a pure weapon user isn't an option either.

This did improve with Ki-Fueled Attack, but it's reliant on having spent ki, and a lot of things you spend ki on already use your BA. Not only is it limited use, but the things that could trigger it use the same type of action, making them mutually exclusive. It's far from useless, but it does feel like a halfway fix.

There's a little more to this, though. Part of the issue presented in the OP is that there just isn't a compelling reason to use monk weapons after a certain point. Magic weapons aside, your Martial Arts die equalized the damage between your weapons and your unarmed strikes, so there isn't much point in even carrying a weapon when you can just punch everything. YMMV on whether this is an issue; some people might like having the freedom to use the aesthetics of a weapon user or unarmed striker without sacrificing any of their competence. What might make sense, and what could give the monk a bit of extra oomph, might be to give two different bonuses, one for using an unarmed strike and one for using a weapon. Both are still equally viable, but you may like one or the other better. This at least would give you a mechanical reason to choose to use weapons or to be unarmed-only.

3. Kensei use their weapons less than a generic monk.

I feel like this should be self-explanatory, but I guess I need to explain it. Holding a weapon is not using it. Agile Parry doesn't care what kind of kensei weapon you're holding; you get the same outcome whether it is a dagger or a longsword. The whole point of the Kensei was getting access to a broader variety of weapons, including weapons with higher damage or reach or longer range, and yet none of those have any bearing on Agile Parry.

Baring some exceptions, the only way to use a weapon is to attack with it. Again, holding a weapon is not using it. People play Kensei to get access to an expanded list of weapons. They want to use those weapons. That means they want to attack with those weapons. The Kensei ends up using their weapons about half as often as a generic monk. It's a baffling design decision.

Here's an idea: replace Agile Parry with Defensive Duelist, but it works with any monk/kensei weapon, not just finesse weapons. Now you get to make as many weapon attacks as other monks, and have a way to boost your AC by defending yourself with your weapon. That's not the only possible solution, I merely present this as a way you could retain the flavor of defending yourself with your weapon without cutting the number of weapon attacks in half.

The other half of the problem is that discussed in the second point above: Kensei want to be using their weapons instead of making unarmed strikes. It's a problem for generic monks who may want to focus on being weapon users without being Kensei, but it's especially a problem for Kensei specifically. Letting Kensei make their BA attack with a weapon instead of an unarmed strike would be a definite buff, but it would be a buff to a subclass that is considered especially weak. Allowing them to use weapons for Flurry of Blows could be quite strong, but unlike a fighter they can't sustain that level of damage output indefinitely.

The Kensei has a lot of problems, and there are a lot of potential solutions. Not all of them are good, and not everyone is likely to agree on which solutions are the good ones.

Hopefully that covers the major points being discussed. In summary:

Monks are bad at being unarmed-only because at low levels, weapons or Unarmed Fighting style are better, and at high levels, magic weapons are better.
Monks are bad at being weapon-only because their BA attacks must use unarmed strikes, and at high levels there isn't a meaningful distinction between the two.
Kensei are bad at using weapons because they can still only make unarmed strikes with their BA, and they make half as many weapon strikes with their action.


Perfect summary, thank you sir. Couldn't have said it better myself. Point 2 is pretty much my primary issue. I like being able to use purely weapons or purely unarmed, but it seems odd that what exists is a confused medium that seems slightly less than the sum of it's parts. The combination style is valid too, of course, but no more so than the options.

I'd like to point out in particular that note on Flurry about sustained damage. This is why I think allowing broader weapon use would be acceptable, since Monk already spends their limited Ki on other things, "Make a large burst of attacks that deal high damage, but without being able to sustain it over the whole fight" feels like an entirely valid niche. Monk as Burst damage vs Fighter's Sustained DPS feels right to me. And it remains distinct from Rogue, since it's many attacks rather than one single attack with tons of damage.

[kazaryu]

Neither am I. I like the added numerical power, my main sticking point is more about having to compromise on theming if I want to have both, when the change seems like such a simple thing. I concede Hexblade is a bit aberrant. lol, i disagree that its only a 'bit' aberrant, but thats a whole 'nother can of worms.





We clearly have different view on what Monk is supposed to be, then. Personally, I don't think what I'm talking about is a huge ask or a far cry from Monk's identity/archetype. Hell, the only reason it bothers me, and the reason I'm bringing it up at all is the fact that I think it's so close thematically. my view is based on whats presented in the book though. the monk is clearly meant to be, specifically, martial artists that heavily combine unarmed fighting with weapon fighting. it may not perfectly line up with anything in the real world, but its not neccisarily meant to.



And as an aside, I'm not saying I necessarily want to play a weapon master Monk. Again, I'm not asking for extra gravy for weapon users, just for the use of them to be less of a flavor compromise. There are plenty of martial arts that involve weapons and don't involve unarmed strikes. This, to me, isn't "any hyper specific character I can possibly think of", this is "agile martial arts guy who makes bursts of weapon attacks", featuring things like shuriken, katana (longsword), nunchucks, etc, and not fists. That sounds like Monk to me. there are, and those specific martial arts are meant to be represented by the fighter. look at the samurai, its a fighter subclass, not a monk one. Fighter is the class for someone that wants to play a full weapon master archetype. sure, you *could* change the monk in the way you want...there's just no need to, the archetype is already represented in the rules.



Off the top of my head: Whirling dervish (blade in each hand, potentially using Drunken Master to weave through the fight in a flurry of blades), assassin flinging double handfuls of poisoned shuriken or kunai, rapid-fire bowman, iajutsu mater that draws a sword into a blur of attacks...you get the idea. Allowing weapon flurries doubles down on the rapid-attacks and dual-wielding flavors, which I feel are underserved but entirely inside monk's domain. TWF is largely underserved because the rules are poorly written for it, but there is plenty of support for the playstyle...but again, you can play that....as a fighter or a ranger (hunters specifically have a lot of multi target support, whereas fighters tend to be more single target focused). so you already have the option for those playstyles.



Yes, the mechanics informing the flavor is precisely my issue here. You hit the nail on the head.

but thats how all of the classes are designed. I can't play a rogue that doesn't know thieves cant. No matter what flavor i want, my rogue *has* to, for some reason, have enough of a connection to the underworld to know how to communicate with it. This includes playing just...a sailor (swashbuckler). My options are to ignore it (jsut...pretend that i don't know thieves cant/never use it) or work it into the flavor of my character. if you want to get into more crunchy features: again, a rogue is always going to be agile and mobile. even if i play straight strength rogue and put an 8 in dex. cunning action still lets me move/hide as a BA, and i'll still eventually get uncanny dodge and evasion. Thats because rogues are MEANT to be played as the strong brute type. they're *supposed* to be the agile, dodgy type. So if i want to play a brute using rogue mechanics...well, i have to figure everything else out.

similarly: you can't play a nimble barbarian...well, you can...but you'd essentially give up half your core features.

The point is, all of the (martial) classes have flavor attached to them, and a lot of that flavor is expressed through their combat mechanics. (full casters don't have this as much, because their primary feature is...spellcasting. which is relatively homogenized. so there's less mechanical codifying of flavor.

[Phhase]

there are, and those specific martial arts are meant to be represented by the fighter. look at the samurai, its a fighter subclass, not a monk one. Fighter is the class for someone that wants to play a full weapon master archetype. sure, you *could* change the monk in the way you want...there's just no need to, the archetype is already represented in the rules.


I don't think I'm quite getting through, but I'll leave off with the fact that I think the Monk base class serves the archetype I'm describing in more and better ways than Fighter does, save for one detail which is why I'm bothering to talk about any of this at all rather than, well, just playing Fighter.

[Greywander]

On the subject of the core identity of the monk as a class, I've proposed some changes before that I'm sure would feel pretty radical to those who think enforcing the class identity is important. But for me, I like opening up additional options.

The changes are in question are:

Any weapon you are proficient in is a monk weapon. This might exclude two-handed and/or heavy weapons.
Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement still work while wearing armor that you are proficient in. (I mean really, casters can do it, why can't monks?)

The key is that the monk doesn't get any additional weapon proficiencies, nor do they get armor proficiencies. So even with the above changes, a generic monk still plays exactly the same. But if you were, say, an elf, you could use a longsword as a monk weapon. If you were a dwarf, you could armor up and go for a STR build. Or dump WIS. This also opens up some potential multiclass combos. Basically, it gives you more options without compromising the base class.

So I think there will be some people who read the above changes and think it's the worst idea ever. And there will be some people wondering why it wasn't written that way in the first place. Both these people have fundamentally different ideas about what's important and how the game should be played, and likely aren't going to agree on certain things. I think that's important to recognize so that we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, we end up getting into arguments that can get pretty heated, and it only creates bad feelings between people without getting anything productive done. Hopefully by recognizing the other person is coming from a fundamentally different perspective, it might become easier to put yourself in their place and understand where they're coming from, instead of trying to force your own perspective on them.

In other words, the correct course of action is entirely dependent on what exactly you're trying to do. Two people trying to do different things aren't going to agree on a course of action, since they're trying to produce completely different outcomes. Your solution isn't going to fix their problem, just like their solution isn't going to fix your problem. Raise your WIS IRL means getting to the point where you understand what the other person is trying to do, and how their solution accomplishes that, and you're solution does not.

[Phhase]

On the subject of the core identity of the monk as a class, I've proposed some changes before that I'm sure would feel pretty radical to those who think enforcing the class identity is important. But for me, I like opening up additional options.

The changes are in question are:

Any weapon you are proficient in is a monk weapon. This might exclude two-handed and/or heavy weapons.
Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement still work while wearing armor that you are proficient in. (I mean really, casters can do it, why can't monks?)

The key is that the monk doesn't get any additional weapon proficiencies, nor do they get armor proficiencies. So even with the above changes, a generic monk still plays exactly the same. But if you were, say, an elf, you could use a longsword as a monk weapon. If you were a dwarf, you could armor up and go for a STR build. Or dump WIS. This also opens up some potential multiclass combos. Basically, it gives you more options without compromising the base class.

So I think there will be some people who read the above changes and think it's the worst idea ever. And there will be some people wondering why it wasn't written that way in the first place. Both these people have fundamentally different ideas about what's important and how the game should be played, and likely aren't going to agree on certain things. I think that's important to recognize so that we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, we end up getting into arguments that can get pretty heated, and it only creates bad feelings between people without getting anything productive done. Hopefully by recognizing the other person is coming from a fundamentally different perspective, it might become easier to put yourself in their place and understand where they're coming from, instead of trying to force your own perspective on them.

In other words, the correct course of action is entirely dependent on what exactly you're trying to do. Two people trying to do different things aren't going to agree on a course of action, since they're trying to produce completely different outcomes. Your solution isn't going to fix their problem, just like their solution isn't going to fix your problem. Raise your WIS IRL means getting to the point where you understand what the other person is trying to do, and how their solution accomplishes that, and you're solution does not.

Gods, but I'm glad there's someone here to provide this pointed wisdom, thanks bro.

Hmmm...interesting idea. I'd have to think about it more to really get a feel. But my instinct is that having more flexibility without fundamentally altering too much, is usually a good thing. Conversely (is that the right word?), I can see why one might think "Heavy armor monk? That doesn't seem right." It's not something one might initially think when they think of "Monk". But I head someone say something on the forum that informs my thinking, about how when they make a multiclassed character, they're not necessarily multiclassed in flavor, per se. So to speak, the sum of the class features represents something that presents as homogeneous in-universe. Like, a warlock/paladin's powers might all be abilities granted by their patron, rather than two entirely separate "classes" existing alongside each other. So it'd be less of a "Heavy Armor Monk", and more "a single class or fighting style that combines heavy armor with agile monk-style maneuvers."

[Hytheter]

I would probably still block unarmoured movement from working with heavy armour, but I like the idea otherwise.

[Chaos Jackal]

Any weapon you are proficient in is a monk weapon. This might exclude two-handed and/or heavy weapons.
Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement still work while wearing armor that you are proficient in. (I mean really, casters can do it, why can't monks?)


The first part of the list here is for the most part achieved via Dedicated Weapon from TCE.

So, initially I just saw this as a "is there any point in monk weapons" OP, and I replied to that effect in the previous page. With the additional gripes mentioned/clarified, in terms of flavor too, let's see if I can give some answer to that regard as well.

First, well... admittedly, monk weapons could've been integrated a bit better. I'm not gonna dispute that. It does feel a bit like a case of "play a fighter", but still, I understand where OP's coming from. At its basis, all I can offer is... well, at least it works with most things. You can still Flurry or use Martial Arts, even if you can't use the weapons themselves in them. You can still stun. You don't really lose anything. But some mild irk, as put in the title, makes sense from some aspects.

Second, TCE helps with that. Like I said above and in the previous page, Dedicated Weapon means that the fighter level or those elf weapons actually matter; it was clearly implemented to bring the latter into play, after all. And while Ki-Fueled Attack might seem like it won't come up very often, that isn't actually the case; Stunning Strike is the most obvious and spammable feature that triggers it, and that's just being a monk. Play as you would normally, hit and stun, and now you get to use your weapon again, rather than your unarmed attack. And it goes even further in the same book thanks to Focused Aim; now, regardless of melee or ranged, Legendary Resistances, high Con saves or stun immunity (as rare as that might be) you always have something to spend a ki point on in order to trigger that bonus action weapon attack. And that's not taking into account the spellcasting subclasses, where you can now cast and slash. In the Kensei's case, it basically gives you a near-foolproof routine of including it; miss and use Focused Aim, hit and use Deft Strike, either way Ki-Fueled Attack is triggered. It's why Kensei archers suddenly became one of the best archer options in the game post-TCE, previously frowned upon for not using Flurry of Blows or Stunning Strike and for lacking in accuracy.

Is it enough? That's not for me to judge; I don't share OP's issue, after all. But hopefully it alleviates the irk somewhat; you can, at this stage of the game, play a monk that will largely use weapons, whose weapons will significantly and for practically the entire game outperform their fists and who won't have to feel forced to include a punch or a kick every time they attack.

Oh, and speaking as someone who doesn't care much for monks in the first place, borderline disliking them in fact, playing the updated Kensei with a longbow really did make me feel like a dedicated master of the weapon. Firing a longbow three times six levels before the fighter, turning misses into hits and parkouring around to hit from any angle while keeping away of enemy melee, it was cool and fun. Agile Parry still annoys me and will do so forever, not gonna lie, but hey, it's not like you'd be using it much in range anyway.

Ultimately, your mileage may vary. But I hope this helps.

[Unoriginal]

Monk is weirdly split conceptually between a kung fu master and a weapon user.

If you look at the fictions the Monk archetype is based on, and the historical reality those fictions are based on, "kung fu master" and "weapon user" are one and the same. Such a conceptual split does not exist.

Ex:


https://youtu.be/Cx9040gp6Z0

[Dork_Forge]

If you look at the fictions the Monk archetype is based on, and the historical reality those fictions are based on, "kung fu master" and "weapon user" are one and the same. Such a conceptual split does not exist.

Ex:


https://youtu.be/Cx9040gp6Z0

Well that was just fun, thank for posting that.

[Greywander]

Mostly I just brought up the armored monk thing to make a point that if you have strong feelings about the class identity, you're probably not going to change your mind. If you're not okay with armored monks, there's a good chance you also won't be okay with ditching unarmed strikes and using weapons full time. Understanding that will help everyone have a more productive discussion, instead of pointlessly arguing with someone who disagrees with your fundamental premises.


If you look at the fictions the Monk archetype is based on, and the historical reality those fictions are based on, "kung fu master" and "weapon user" are one and the same. Such a conceptual split does not exist.
I thought it was clear that I meant that monks are split between weapon attacks and unarmed strikes. That certainly is one character archetype that exists, but it's clear that some people would like to use the monk class to play out archetypes that lean more heavily toward using weapons or unarmed strikes exclusively, rather than mixing the two.

I may have come up with a decent tweak that should make weapon-only monks more viable. For generic monks, Ki-Fueled Attack is probably sufficient for the singular BA attack. But for Flurry, we could change it to work with monk weapons that have the light property, and after 11th level, where the Martial Arts die makes unarmed strikes mostly equal to weapons, it could be upgraded to allow Flurry with any monk weapon. Between that and Ki-Fueled Attack, you can use weapons all the time, with the caveat that you have to be spending ki somewhere. Not sure if that's good enough for Kensei, or if they need a further tweak. I would definitely change Agile Parry, but I'm not sure they need more than that.

Then there's making a distinction between weapon attacks and unarmed strikes. I think we could add a new feature, say, at 9th level, that gives monks access to special techniques on a hit. One complaint about monks is that they're notoriously bad at grappling despite being a martial arts class. So let's say that on a hit with an unarmed strike, the target has to make a STR save against the monk's ki save DC, and on a failure you can either shove or grapple the target. This gets around the monk's poor STR bonus. It doesn't benefit from things like Enlarge/Reduce or Expertise, so you're still not the best grappler, but you can do it while attacking.

For weapon attacks, I was trying to think of weapon-specific tropes from anime and such. One I thought of is when two characters attack each other as they run past one another, followed by a dramatic pause before one of them collapses. To simplify that down, let's say that when you hit with a weapon you can move through the target's space until the end of your turn. This also synergizes nicely with the monk's superior mobility.

The other weapon trope I thought of is when one character cuts through another character's weapon. So let's say that, in addition to the above, when you hit with a weapon you can force the target to make a CON save, and on a failure you can either (a) make them drop one item they are holding, or (b) spend 1 ki to destroy one non-magical item they are holding, or a non-magical shield or suit of armor they are wearing.

That might be overkill, but it seems like a good place to start at least.

[Segev]

2. Generic monks have poor support for using monk weapons.

Your BA attack must be an unarmed strike. Flurry of Blows must be a pair of unarmed strikes. Monk is weirdly split conceptually between a kung fu master and a weapon user. As noted above, using only unarmed strikes isn't a great idea at lower levels, where your weapons will deal more damage, and then at higher levels this continues to be true if you happen to get your hands on a magic weapon. At the same time, you're still required to use unarmed strikes for you BA attacks, so playing a pure weapon user isn't an option either.

This did improve with Ki-Fueled Attack, but it's reliant on having spent ki, and a lot of things you spend ki on already use your BA. Not only is it limited use, but the things that could trigger it use the same type of action, making them mutually exclusive. It's far from useless, but it does feel like a halfway fix.

There's a little more to this, though. Part of the issue presented in the OP is that there just isn't a compelling reason to use monk weapons after a certain point. Magic weapons aside, your Martial Arts die equalized the damage between your weapons and your unarmed strikes, so there isn't much point in even carrying a weapon when you can just punch everything. YMMV on whether this is an issue; some people might like having the freedom to use the aesthetics of a weapon user or unarmed striker without sacrificing any of their competence. What might make sense, and what could give the monk a bit of extra oomph, might be to give two different bonuses, one for using an unarmed strike and one for using a weapon. Both are still equally viable, but you may like one or the other better. This at least would give you a mechanical reason to choose to use weapons or to be unarmed-only.I agree with your general points and especially this one as a point of frustration, but I have a minor disagreement about the value of weapons once the damage is equalized.

There ARE things you can do with weapons that you cannot without. Most of them hinge on a feat or so, though, so it's very niche. But, as a simple if perhaps underwhelming example, Polearm Master would let you attack people with a quarterstaff as they approach you.

Personally, I think ki-fueled attack should let you spend 1 ki to get a bonus action attack with a monk weapon, if your primary action didn't use ki that turn. Alternatively, if you spent ki to enable a bonus action, you may also make an unarmed strike or an attack with a monk weapon as part of that bonus action.


3. Kensei use their weapons less than a generic monk.This is very well put.


Here's an idea: replace Agile Parry with Defensive Duelist, but it works with any monk/kensei weapon, not just finesse weapons. Now you get to make as many weapon attacks as other monks, and have a way to boost your AC by defending yourself with your weapon. That's not the only possible solution, I merely present this as a way you could retain the flavor of defending yourself with your weapon without cutting the number of weapon attacks in half.Personally, I think it's just unnecessary to give Kensei an AC buff. Witness the ranged attack benefit for them: it simply increases their damage. Why not have that for all attacks and drop the defensive melee option entirely?


The other half of the problem is that discussed in the second point above: Kensei want to be using their weapons instead of making unarmed strikes. It's a problem for generic monks who may want to focus on being weapon users without being Kensei, but it's especially a problem for Kensei specifically. Letting Kensei make their BA attack with a weapon instead of an unarmed strike would be a definite buff, but it would be a buff to a subclass that is considered especially weak. Allowing them to use weapons for Flurry of Blows could be quite strong, but unlike a fighter they can't sustain that level of damage output indefinitely.This is also an option that leans the right direction, I think.

Heck, give them some sort of action or action-enhancer that spends ki; now ki-fueled attack triggers more easily for them.

If you really love the +2 AC defensive stance: "When you take the attack action on your turn while wielding a melee kensei weapon, you may spend a point of ki to defend yourself with that weapon, giving you +2 to AC until the start of your next turn." Now it's still using your kensei weapon for defense, but it's not telling you to stop using it for offense, AND you can choose to use the kensei weapon instead of an unarmed strike as your bonus action! It's still "monk-y" because it's ki to activate it.

Another brainstorming idea that just hit me, in case the +1d4 damage is too good for melee without some sort of caveat: "Once per turn when you hit the same target with both a kensei weapon and an unarmed strike, you may roll your martial arts die and deal damage equal to that amount. The damage is your choice of bludgeoning or the type the kensei weapon dealt." This rewards using the kensei weapon and an unarmed strike, but doesn't discourage use of the kensei weapon when you otherwise could, since both Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows calls for unarmed strikes, anyway.


As far as Agile Parry goes, its a feature that allows you to use what is functionally a shield as a monk. I feel like people talking about wanting to use exclusively melee weapons without having unarmed strike involved at all are kind of just complaining that they didnt pick "fighter" as their class. Which is fine, ive been of the opinion that Monk should be a fighter subclass rather than its own class since forever. But if you want to play a weapon master character who doesnt use unarmed strike at all, play a barbarian or a fighter. A monk incorporates their entire body into their fighting style, i think its frankly silly to complain about being unable to separate the fundamental fantasy of the class from its function. You arent just a fighter who wears a robe, even when you have a sword in hand or whatever, you still weaponize your body.It's not a desire to never use unarmed strikes; it's a desire to have more options. Martial Arts, as written, will always have room for the unarmed strike bonus action, and I don't think I've seen proposals to change that. The specific complaint is that monk weapons factor in very little. They enable Martial Arts's bonus action attack, so you can two-hand a quarterstaff for d8 damage at low level and still get your bonus action attack, and they kind-of sort-of give you some extra options at high level if you have a niche reason why wielding a particular kind of weapon gives you an advantage unrelated to monk class feature. Not BAD, but very much not as big of a deal as some may prefer.

The real sin is the Kensei, which arguably should've been a Fighter subclass instead of a Monk subclass. Making the longbow and a longsword into monk weapons is an okay buff to damage and a good buff to maximum range, but it doesn't do nearly as much as it sounds like it does, on paper, and then the VERY FIRST subclass feature basically says, "Don't attack with your melee kensei weapon in order to get this class feature."

I don't care how you fluff that, and I don't care how good that is in raw numbers, it's a very "feels bad" mechanic to say, "Your cool thing is your unusual weapon. Reduce it to a shield."

[Unoriginal]

I thought it was clear that I meant that monks are split between weapon attacks and unarmed strikes. That certainly is one character archetype that exists, but it's clear that some people would like to use the monk class to play out archetypes that lean more heavily toward using weapons or unarmed strikes exclusively, rather than mixing the two.

It was indeed clear it was what you meant, and I can certainly understand why some people would like to play more of one or of the other.

What I was addressing was the part where you called the Monk "weirdly split conceptually" because they're not geared toward giving the choice of exclusively-weapon-using or exclusively-unarmed-strikes-using, pointing out that there is no such separation in the archetype the Monk is based on.

Or in other words: it's not weird, conceptually or otherwise, that the Monk uses both weapons and unarmed strikes, even if it's understandable there are people who'd like the choice between 100% weapon focus, 100% unarmed focus, and mix of the two.

[Keltest]

It's not a desire to never use unarmed strikes; it's a desire to have more options. Martial Arts, as written, will always have room for the unarmed strike bonus action, and I don't think I've seen proposals to change that. The specific complaint is that monk weapons factor in very little. They enable Martial Arts's bonus action attack, so you can two-hand a quarterstaff for d8 damage at low level and still get your bonus action attack, and they kind-of sort-of give you some extra options at high level if you have a niche reason why wielding a particular kind of weapon gives you an advantage unrelated to monk class feature. Not BAD, but very much not as big of a deal as some may prefer.

The real sin is the Kensei, which arguably should've been a Fighter subclass instead of a Monk subclass. Making the longbow and a longsword into monk weapons is an okay buff to damage and a good buff to maximum range, but it doesn't do nearly as much as it sounds like it does, on paper, and then the VERY FIRST subclass feature basically says, "Don't attack with your melee kensei weapon in order to get this class feature."

I don't care how you fluff that, and I don't care how good that is in raw numbers, it's a very "feels bad" mechanic to say, "Your cool thing is your unusual weapon. Reduce it to a shield."

I guess this doesnt really help my confusion at all. Youre making the choice to use it as a shield. It is definitionally another option. Youre so skilled with your weapon you can do things with it that it was never intended for. If the problem isn't "I dont want to incorporate martial arts into my fighting" and it isnt "I want more options" then... what is it?

Certainly if you think that the monk's conceptual flavor is fundamentally lacking then I'm totally on board with you there, but the premise of the thread kind of at least assumes people find the idea of the monk fun and interesting.

[x3n0n]

I guess this doesnt really help my confusion at all. Youre making the choice to use it as a shield. It is definitionally another option. Youre so skilled with your weapon you can do things with it that it was never intended for. If the problem isn't "I dont want to incorporate martial arts into my fighting" and it isnt "I want more options" then... what is it?

Certainly if you think that the monk's conceptual flavor is fundamentally lacking then I'm totally on board with you there, but the premise of the thread kind of at least assumes people find the idea of the monk fun and interesting.

So, on the specific "Kensei's Agile Parry feels bad", as I mentioned above, I did find it dissatisfying until Extra Attack.

Kensei 3 has several features:
1. a tool proficiency ribbon
2. Kensei Weapons: choose 2 kensei weapons; you become proficient with them, they are monk weapons, and they are kensei weapons for Kensei-specific features
3. Kensei's Shot: a reward for making ranged attacks with a kensei weapon
4. Agile Parry: a (pretty good) reward for not making all of your attacks with a melee kensei weapon

Kensei 6 and 11 give new features for attacking with your kensei weapons (and 17 gives a feature for attacking with any monk weapon).

"Kensei Weapons" used to be the only way to turn non-monk weapons into monk weapons, which was new and interesting at the time: Dex-wielding a d10 versatile, getting tier-scaling damage on small-dice non-monk weapons (like the whip, sling, hand crossbow), getting access to a wide variety of magic weapons. Dedicated Weapon takes some of the uniqueness out of that feature (although granting proficiency and allowing longbow are still unique).

Agile Parry, while it shores up a class weakness (AC that doesn't scale as quickly as most martials), feels unsatisfying at 3rd level because it's a reward for not using your weapon to attack (which has been a complaint ever since Xanathar's, and maybe in the UA). Especially since Kensei Weapons has become less valuable, I think it would be nice to have a reward at Kensei 3 for attacking with your melee kensei weapon.

Edited to add/clarify: before the existence of Dedicated Weapon, "Kensei Weapons" was kind of a backhanded reward for attacking with your newly-chosen melee kensei weapon; without it, your weapon was not eligible for Martial Arts (and possibly not for Dex-wielding), so you wouldn't get your bonus action unarmed strike. Now that part of the feature is less interesting because of Dedicated Weapon: any proficient character can do that.

[Segev]

I guess this doesnt really help my confusion at all. Youre making the choice to use it as a shield. It is definitionally another option. Youre so skilled with your weapon you can do things with it that it was never intended for. If the problem isn't "I dont want to incorporate martial arts into my fighting" and it isnt "I want more options" then... what is it?

Certainly if you think that the monk's conceptual flavor is fundamentally lacking then I'm totally on board with you there, but the premise of the thread kind of at least assumes people find the idea of the monk fun and interesting.

As x3n0n says, it's a class feature that says, "I don't care what you chose, because it doesn't matter. To use this class feature, DO NOT use the thing that made your choice matter."

[Dork_Forge]

SI think it would be nice to have a reward at Kensei 3 for attacking with your melee kensei weapon.

The reward for attacking with your Kensei weapon is the benefit of whatever weapon you chose. Bigger damage die, reach etc.

Agile Parry is a reward for wielding your weapon, but choosing to forgo those offensive benefits for a defensive one.


As x3n0n says, it's a class feature that says, "I don't care what you chose, because it doesn't matter. To use this class feature, DO NOT use the thing that made your choice matter."

It's only anywhere near that harsh for two whole levels, in the quickest progressing tier of the game. And even then, that completely ignores the nuance of making the decision.

As for what you chose mattering to the feature itself, that was never going to fly. That would make Agile Parry a bulky, unwieldy feature trying to accommodate for various weapon types, and then aging poorly whenever new weapons are added that don't have their own specific benefits.

[Segev]

The reward for attacking with your Kensei weapon is the benefit of whatever weapon you chose. Bigger damage die, reach etc.

Agile Parry is a reward for wielding your weapon, but choosing to forgo those offensive benefits for a defensive one.



It's only anywhere near that harsh for two whole levels, in the quickest progressing tier of the game. And even then, that completely ignores the nuance of making the decision.

As for what you chose mattering to the feature itself, that was never going to fly. That would make Agile Parry a bulky, unwieldy feature trying to accommodate for various weapon types, and then aging poorly whenever new weapons are added that don't have their own specific benefits.

1) They could have given it the same benefit they gave the ranged attack, and nobody would be complaining. (If it's too powerful, it's probably too powerful on the ranged attack, too.)

2) I didn't suggest that Agile Parry had to vary based on weapon; I said that a feature that tells you NOT to use the thing that made your choice matter in order to use the feature is a bad feature.


It'd be like giving a Rogue subclass a level three feature that says, "As long as you use strength on your attack roll with a melee finesse or light weapon when you attack on your turn, you gain a +2 AC."

[Keltest]

1) They could have given it the same benefit they gave the ranged attack, and nobody would be complaining. (If it's too powerful, it's probably too powerful on the ranged attack, too.)

2) I didn't suggest that Agile Parry had to vary based on weapon; I said that a feature that tells you NOT to use the thing that made your choice matter in order to use the feature is a bad feature.


It'd be like giving a Rogue subclass a level three feature that says, "As long as you use strength on your attack roll with a melee weapon when you attack on your turn, you gain a +2 AC."

But... you are using it? You're using it defensively instead of offensively, but that doesnt mean you arent using it.

[Segev]

But... you are using it? You're using it defensively instead of offensively, but that doesnt mean you arent using it.

And this rogue subclass is making an attack. So he's not not using his finesse weapon, as well.



(I should go edit it to say it requires a finesse weapon. Please assume that was in there all along.)

[Greywander]

What if Agile Parry instead gave an AC bonus until your next turn when you spend ki? Not spending ki for AC, just after you spend ki on anything. That way it isn't just free but you can still get the benefit while attacking with your weapon.

[Segev]

What if Agile Parry instead gave an AC bonus until your next turn when you spend ki? Not spending ki for AC, just after you spend ki on anything. That way it isn't just free but you can still get the benefit while attacking with your weapon.

That'd work. You can even require them to be wielding their kensei weapon, still, which I would recommend. Now you're using it and being a monk about it, rather than NOT using it in order to kind-of use it.

[x3n0n]

That'd work. You can even require them to be wielding their kensei weapon, still, which I would recommend. Now you're using it and being a monk about it, rather than NOT using it in order to kind-of use it.

So

"Agile Parry. If you are holding a kensei weapon, and you make an unarmed strike as part of the Attack action on your turn or spend ki on your turn, you can use it to defend yourself if it is a melee weapon. You gain a +2 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, while the weapon is in your hand and you aren’t incapacitated."

?

[Dork_Forge]

1) They could have given it the same benefit they gave the ranged attack, and nobody would be complaining. (If it's too powerful, it's probably too powerful on the ranged attack, too.)

2) I didn't suggest that Agile Parry had to vary based on weapon; I said that a feature that tells you NOT to use the thing that made your choice matter in order to use the feature is a bad feature.


It'd be like giving a Rogue subclass a level three feature that says, "As long as you use strength on your attack roll with a melee finesse or light weapon when you attack on your turn, you gain a +2 AC."

1) Then you'd have complaints that it didn't synergize with Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows, which isn't an issue for ranged weapons. It'd also be a bad trade off, 1-2d4 is just worse than an entire attack.

2) I've seen multiple times, I think from yourself, that the choice didn't matter and that the feature doesn't take it into consideration. I assumed this meant that Agile Parry should give a benefit that takes your choice into consideration, if that isn't the case then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

And no, it really isn't like that at all. What you said just doesn't make any sense why you're getting it, where as Agile Parry does make sense, even if some people believe it feels bad to use.

[Greywander]

So

"Agile Parry. If you are holding a kensei weapon, and you make an unarmed strike as part of the Attack action on your turn or spend ki on your turn, you can use it to defend yourself if it is a melee weapon. You gain a +2 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, while the weapon is in your hand and you aren’t incapacitated."

?
I was thinking it would replace the original completely. So making an unarmed strike with your Attack action would no longer trigger Agile Parry. That said, this does seem like a net nerf, so maybe the Kensei could be slightly buffed elsewhere or we could tweak Agile Parry a bit more.

[Segev]

1) Then you'd have complaints that it didn't synergize with Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows, which isn't an issue for ranged weapons. It'd also be a bad trade off, 1-2d4 is just worse than an entire attack.

2) I've seen multiple times, I think from yourself, that the choice didn't matter and that the feature doesn't take it into consideration. I assumed this meant that Agile Parry should give a benefit that takes your choice into consideration, if that isn't the case then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

And no, it really isn't like that at all. What you said just doesn't make any sense why you're getting it, where as Agile Parry does make sense, even if some people believe it feels bad to use.

You have misunderstood me, I'm afraid. I stand by my statement before that Agile Parry removes the importance of your choice of weapon. You COULD, as you suggest, bulk it up so every weapon gets its own perk, as an answer to that criticism, but that isn't the answer I am looking for and probably isn't one I'd support as a good idea. Weapons already have traits that make the choice of which one to use important. Agile Parry's sin is BOTH telling you to NOT use the weapon in a way that makes that choice meaningful, AND giving you a bonus in return that eliminates the significance of your choice.

Compare to the ranged weapon perk, which, while generic to all weapons, has you still USING the weapon in a manner that makes the uniqueness of your choice (of longbow) significant, in that its use takes advantage of its unique properties over other possible choices.



As for it not synergizing with martial arts or flurry of blows, that's silly; nothing prevents you from using them even if you spend ki to get the defensive boost.

[Dork_Forge]

You have misunderstood me, I'm afraid. I stand by my statement before that Agile Parry removes the importance of your choice of weapon. You COULD, as you suggest, bulk it up so every weapon gets its own perk, as an answer to that criticism, but that isn't the answer I am looking for and probably isn't one I'd support as a good idea. Weapons already have traits that make the choice of which one to use important. Agile Parry's sin is BOTH telling you to NOT use the weapon in a way that makes that choice meaningful, AND giving you a bonus in return that eliminates the significance of your choice.

It wasn't a suggestion, it was what I understood from your posts. Just a misunderstanding.

Again though, this is framed from a perspective of just incentivizing you to not use it, instead of creating an interesting choice to make. This will be player preference, but I prefer when features give me meaningful choices to make instead of just making something obviously better and the default all the time.


Compare to the ranged weapon perk, which, while generic to all weapons, has you still USING the weapon in a manner that makes the uniqueness of your choice (of longbow) significant, in that its use takes advantage of its unique properties over other possible choices.

This is a bit muddled, I'm not sure if you're saying that longbow is the explicit choice, or that it universally leans into the strength of whatever you choose.


As for it not synergizing with martial arts or flurry of blows, that's silly; nothing prevents you from using them even if you spend ki to get the defensive boost.

It's not silly at all... The proposal was to make it like the ranged weapon benefit, which is a bonus action in return for a d4 per attack. Consuming the bonus action makes it entirely incompatible with Martial Arts attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind. And if Ki-Fueled Strike is in play, it also shuts that down.

[Segev]

It wasn't a suggestion, it was what I understood from your posts. Just a misunderstanding.

Again though, this is framed from a perspective of just incentivizing you to not use it, instead of creating an interesting choice to make. This will be player preference, but I prefer when features give me meaningful choices to make instead of just making something obviously better and the default all the time.I, too, favor interesting choices. However, when the "interesting choice" is, "to use this class feature, you must obviate the choice you made that is supposed to be iconic to this archetype," I call it a bad design choice.

Give it trade-offs; I'm all for that. This is a bad one.


This is a bit muddled, I'm not sure if you're saying that longbow is the explicit choice, or that it universally leans into the strength of whatever you choose.Sorry, that was a joke. Think of it along the lines of, "What ranged kensai weapon did you pick and why is it longbow?" I was implying that longbow is what everyone's going to choose. The parenthetical mention of a longbow is actually not relevant to my larger point. My apologies for my joke muddying my message.


It's not silly at all... The proposal was to make it like the ranged weapon benefit, which is a bonus action in return for a d4 per attack. Consuming the bonus action makes it entirely incompatible with Martial Arts attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind. And if Ki-Fueled Strike is in play, it also shuts that down.Ah, fair enough. I had honestly forgotten they had to expend their bonus action for that.

[Dork_Forge]

I, too, favor interesting choices. However, when the "interesting choice" is, "to use this class feature, you must obviate the choice you made that is supposed to be iconic to this archetype," I call it a bad design choice.

Give it trade-offs; I'm all for that. This is a bad one.

Eh, different strokes.


Sorry, that was a joke. Think of it along the lines of, "What ranged kensai weapon did you pick and why is it longbow?" I was implying that longbow is what everyone's going to choose. The parenthetical mention of a longbow is actually not relevant to my larger point. My apologies for my joke muddying my message.

Ohhh Thank you for explaining, that was pre-food and the brain was running on empty.

Tangentially, a sling using Kensei with Crusher would be fun IMO and still a natural switch-hitter.


Ah, fair enough. I had honestly forgotten they had to expend their bonus action for that.

Yeah, my grip with that is I'd rather the dice be larger than d4s, it's hardly breaking the bank to make it MA die or something at range.

[JackPhoenix]

That's fair, and for the record, I do have gripes about the reverse situation: I wanted to play a Battle Master/Monk so I could do all sorts of tactical martial arts moves and judo throws and stuff, only to promptly realize the majority of maneuvers require one to be using a weapon (yes I'm aware shove attempts are pretty analogous to unarmed throws in principle, it's just a generalization). And the point on item support is also valid.

There are exactly 2 maneuvers that require you to use a weapon: Brace, which requires melee weapon, and Quick Toss, which require thrown weapon. Everything else works just fine with unarmed strikes.

[Greywander]

So I went ahead and made a thread in the Homebrew subforum with a number of proposed monk tweaks, specifically inspired by this thread. If that's of interest to you, you can find it here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?645725-Monk-tweaks&p=25457268

[Phhase]

There are exactly 2 maneuvers that require you to use a weapon: Brace, which requires melee weapon, and Quick Toss, which require thrown weapon. Everything else works just fine with unarmed strikes.



Disarming Attack.

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it's holding. 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.

Distracting Strike.

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to distract the creature, giving your allies an opening. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.

...

Etc, etc. Unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks. My issue was not the requirement for a specific type of weapon, rather the requirement to use a weapon at all.

[Dork_Forge]

Etc, etc. Unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks. My issue was not the requirement for a specific type of weapon, rather the requirement to use a weapon at all.

Yes, they are.

In the game something is either a weapon attack or a spell attack, each with their own melee and ranged subcategories.

Unarmed strikes are not spell attacks, so they're weapon attacks.

[Phhase]

Yes, they are.

In the game something is either a weapon attack or a spell attack, each with their own melee and ranged subcategories.

Unarmed strikes are not spell attacks, so they're weapon attacks.

...citation if you don't mind? Because "Unarmed" to me clearly means "without a weapon", and 5e lacks the 3.5 monk clause of treating unarmed attacks as being armed. And features like the Parry maneuver specifically call out melee attacks without them being melee weapon attacks, meaning it's possible for a melee attack to not simultaneously be a weapon attack.

[Witty Username]

...citation if you don't mind? Because "Unarmed" to me clearly means "without a weapon", and 5e lacks the 3.5 monk clause of treating unarmed attacks as being armed. And features like the Parry maneuver specifically call out melee attacks without them being melee weapon attacks, meaning it's possible for a melee attack to not simultaneously be a weapon attack.

Ah, that would be PHB pg. 195 in the Melee Combat section. It is still written in English so there is some natural ambiguity but the plain reading is that you can use an unarmed strike instead of a weapon to make a melee weapon attack.

Some P. in this S.
Melee attacks would cover weapon attacks, and spell attacks. physical attacks normally made with weapons and magical attacks normally made with spells.

Unarmed strikes are not weapons but use the weapon attack rules. This is how you get weirdness like stunning strike which works with melee weapon attacks (inclusive to unarmed strikes) but Imp. Divine smite works with hits from a melee weapon (non-inclusive to unarmed strikes).
Divine smite is a fun one due to its wonky wording, since it works with melee weapon attacks(unarmed strikes, yes) but adds the radiant damage to the weapon's damage (unarmed strikes, no). Most people as I understand fall on reading as divine smite working with unarmed strikes but Jeremy Crawford would disagree:

Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. And they don't work with Divine Smite, which requires a weapon.

--
This is probably the best description of my thoughts on the issue at hand. I read three pages and was first compelled to speak to cite a rule I happen to know well enough to look up a page number fast.

But uh, Monk weapons, uh they exist. I have issues with the monk but I have no beef with monk weapons.

[Hytheter]

If unarmed strikes weren't weapon attacks, you wouldn't be able to use Stunning Strike with them, and that is obviously not correct.

Here's a Crawford confirmation if you regard his opinion: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/951895470967672832?lang=en

The confusing thing is that the rules in places refer to "melee weapon attack" but also to "melee attack with a weapon" and these are different things. Only the second one actually requires a weapon, while unarmed strikes qualify for the former. But it's among some of the worst rules writing in the game, no doubt.


And features like the Parry maneuver specifically call out melee attacks without them being melee weapon attacks, meaning it's possible for a melee attack to not simultaneously be a weapon attack.

"Melee attacks" is an umbrella that includes Melee Weapon Attacks but also Melee Spell Attacks. Parry works on both, so the generic term is used.

[Phhase]

Ah, that would be PHB pg. 195 in the Melee Combat section. It is still written in English so there is some natural ambiguity but the plain reading is that you can use an unarmed strike instead of a weapon to make a melee weapon attack.

--
This is probably the best description of my thoughts on the issue at hand. I read three pages and was first compelled to speak to cite a rule I happen to know well enough to look up a page number fast.

But uh, Monk weapons, uh they exist. I have issues with the monk but I have no beef with monk weapons.

Found the relevant passge.

Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

My reading of the last paragraph is that "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike" means that the "unarmed strike" is replacing the "weapon" portion of "making a melee weapon attack", and that the RAI reading is not "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike [to make the melee weapon attack]" I am especially convinced because the next part of the sentence explicitly states that unarmed strikes do not count as weapons.

I do see where the confusion comes in though. And it is possible it has been updated and my source is old.

[ender241]

Found the relevant passge.

Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

My reading of the last paragraph is that "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike" means that the "unarmed strike" is replacing the "weapon" portion of "making a melee weapon attack", and that the RAI reading is not "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike [to make the melee weapon attack]" I am especially convinced because the next part of the sentence explicitly states that unarmed strikes do not count as weapons.

I do see where the confusion comes in though. And it is possible it has been updated and my source is old.

Nope. Unarmed strikes are not weapons but you do use them to make melee weapon attacks. Yes, it's weird and confusing. But I guarantee you that's the case.

[Witty Username]

That's possible, I think my PHB is the second printing. So most of the errata is not in it but it has some of the early stuff like water whip as a action and unarmed strikes not being on the weapon table. As I recall, it has been awhile since I saw a Day 1 PHB.

[Phhase]

Nope. Unarmed strikes are not weapons but you do use them to make melee weapon attacks. Yes, it's weird and confusing. But I guarantee you that's the case.

Source for this reading?

[ender241]

Source for this reading?

The part from the PHB that you quoted, which was then clarified in Sage Advice:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA130


What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.

Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

[Dork_Forge]

...citation if you don't mind? Because "Unarmed" to me clearly means "without a weapon", and 5e lacks the 3.5 monk clause of treating unarmed attacks as being armed. And features like the Parry maneuver specifically call out melee attacks without them being melee weapon attacks, meaning it's possible for a melee attack to not simultaneously be a weapon attack.

That's because a melee attack can be a weapon attack or a spell attack, as I'v already explained. Sage advice has already been cited, but I'll double down on this:

If you agree that Stunning Strike can be used with unarmed strikes, then you have to concede that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. Nothing in the Stunning Strike feature references unarmed strikes at all.

If something requires a weapon, it will say 'with a weapon' or something to that effect instead of weapon attack.

[Phhase]

That's because a melee attack can be a weapon attack or a spell attack, as I'v already explained. Sage advice has already been cited, but I'll double down on this:

If you agree that Stunning Strike can be used with unarmed strikes, then you have to concede that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. Nothing in the Stunning Strike feature references unarmed strikes at all.

If something requires a weapon, it will say 'with a weapon' or something to that effect instead of weapon attack.

...

I maintain the opinion that this is Moon Logic or horrifically phrased at best.

But, it does enable one of my build ideas. So that's something at least.

Huh, didn't notice that about Stunning Strike. Wack.

[Dork_Forge]

...

I maintain the opinion that this is Moon Logic or horrifically phrased at best.

But, it does enable one of my build ideas. So that's something at least.

Huh, didn't notice that about Stunning Strike. Wack.

It is 100% weird chose of wording and unintuitive, not arguing with you there, but it is how 5E works. When you look at it that way, it supports the Battle Master being good at whatever form of martial combat you want through maneuvers though.

[Hytheter]

If only they'd used the term 'Physical Attack' or some such. It would have stopped a lot of headache.

[Greywander]

Yeah, it can be a bit confusing. I think part of it is that it's actually a lot simpler than you might expect it to be. You'd think unarmed strikes would be something separate from weapon attacks, but that's actually making it more complex than it actually is. All attacks can be placed somewhere in a 2x2 grid, like a simplified alignment system. On one axis, every attack is either melee or ranged. On the other axis, every attack is either a weapon attack or a spell attack. With those being the only options, it makes sense that the closest fit for unarmed strikes is as melee weapon attacks.

There are some other interesting twists on this system. For example, Thorn Whip is a melee spell attack with a 30 foot range, which increases to 60 feet if you take Spell Sniper, and can be further extended with the Distant Spell metamagic.

Nets are ranged weapons (and thus use a ranged weapon attack), but have a close range of only 5 feet. This means you're always throwing the net while in melee, and therefore at disadvantage (unless you have Crossbow Expert), or you're throwing it at long range, and therefore at disadvantage (unless you have Sharpshooter).

The Archery fighting style keys off of attacks with a ranged weapon... which is not the same as a ranged weapon attack. You can bash someone in melee with a bow and still add the Archery bonus.

Most thrown weapons (except darts and nets) are melee weapons. Throwing them is a ranged attack. This means they benefit from the first two bullet points for Sharpshooter, but not the third bullet point.

Speaking of darts, they have the finesse property. You might think of finesse as allowing you to use DEX with a weapon, but darts are ranged weapons and already use DEX by default. What finesse actually does is allow you to use either STR or DEX, but I believe darts are the only ranged weapon with finesse, so in every other case finesse is letting you use DEX on a melee weapon. Darts are also the only ranged weapon that can be used with Defensive Duelist.

Also, if you want to know what is or isn't an attack, anything that uses an attack roll is an attack, and all attacks use attack rolls. Except for grappling and shoving, which are called out as "special attacks", but don't use attack rolls. Likely, this is so that they interact with effects that are disrupted by attacking, e.g. Sanctuary or Invisibility.

Some monsters are resistant or immune to non-magical weapon attacks dealing BPS damage. But as we see above, there's a pretty narrow definition of what counts as an attack. Traps are usually not attacks, as they often use saving throws instead of attack rolls. Fall damage is also not an attack. That means that both of these bypass the resistance/immunity to non-magical attacks. Not really sure why a bear trap will hurt a werewolf, but a sword won't, but there you go.

[Unoriginal]

Some monsters are resistant or immune to non-magical weapon attacks dealing BPS damage. But as we see above, there's a pretty narrow definition of what counts as an attack. Traps are usually not attacks, as they often use saving throws instead of attack rolls. Fall damage is also not an attack. That means that both of these bypass the resistance/immunity to non-magical attacks. Not really sure why a bear trap will hurt a werewolf, but a sword won't, but there you go.

Indeed. For further hilarity, the Unarmed Fighting Style damage-from-grappling isn't a weapon damage either, so a Fighter can't punch a Werewolf to death, but they can crush the Werewolf to death with a bear hug.

[Witty Username]

Indeed. For further hilarity, the Unarmed Fighting Style damage-from-grappling isn't a weapon damage either, so a Fighter can't punch a Werewolf to death, but they can crush the Werewolf to death with a bear hug.

"If it has a windpipe, I can kill it."

[Segev]

"If it has a windpipe, I can kill it."

Even if it doesn't! As long as it's not immune to the grappled condition, it can be killed this way!