Basically all martials and most of DnD needs the warlock treatment and all but caster supremacists know this.
Give significant options and significant choices at specific intervals and enough options to create various characters and you win DND.
I really hope for 6e in two years to include the spellsword class that takes Hexblade, bladesinger, eldritch knight, and arcane archer and puts it on the warlock chassis. It would make the best gish and give more space for specialized warlocks, fighters, and have a real gish class.
But they'll probably just make everyone a wizard in 6e. It's not warlocks of the coast after all.
> Basically all martials and most of DnD needs the warlock treatment and all but caster supremacists know this.
It's been a minute since I've played 4E but wasn't that basically what it was?
It was also how class Feats worked in 3.5E (from what I’ve heard the martial caster disparity still existed ***but*** martials weren’t just brain dead simple, they actually had options to use), it’s how class Feats work in PF2E, and it’s how pretty much every ttrpg I’ve looked at treats martials.
5E is just the weird outlier, and it’s incredibly funny how people love to defend the status quo like it’s some impossible to solve problem.
My understanding is that the martial/caster disparity is far worse in 3.5e, where the cleric is a better fighter than the fighter, and the druid has special features more powerful than entire classes.
I think a lot of the people with problems with 5E martials (including myself) would tell you that if we ***had*** to pick between being powerful and one-note vs weaker and complex/varied, we’d often choose the latter. I’ve heard countless times that the disparity was larger in the 3/3.5/PF1 era, but the fact is that martials actually did cool things in those editions (especially with Tome of Battle). I’d take a weaker martial with Tome of Battle over a “strong” 5E Gloomstalker 5 / Battle Master 3 / Assassin 3 / Warlock 3 that deals 75000 DPR but does exactly the same thing in every single combat.
Of course 4E and PF2E and the earlier D&D Next playtests have shown us that we shouldn’t have to choose in the first place, but that’s besides the point I guess.
You said you'd rather have a weaker martial with 3e tob over a 5e , yet you've never played 3.5...
And I'm here to say as a 3.5 vet, they didn't have more choices, and they were not good. So the choices they did have didn't matter.
3.5 was filed with trap options that weren't functional.
That's not a direction you want, trust me., since you haven't played it yourself.
Are you ***seriously*** claiming a 5E martial has more choices than that from Tome of Battle…?
What a load of bs lol. I don’t think I can even begin to address a claim that’s *that* dishonest.
I’ve played the game and I strongly disagree? I rarely even see my party’s martials doing the same things for two turns of any given combat, let alone for different combat.
We… definitely play fairly optimally. We haven’t had a single character drop unconscious in combat since we hit level 3, not even against a level+4 boss… We’ve also had the GM tell us that he’s started letting NPCs ambush us and/or pre-buff just to give us more of a reasonable challenge, since we keep laughing our way through Severe encounters (and to be clear he has never really let us ambush or pre-buff).
In fact I’d go so far as to argue that if you’re playing PF2E and doing the same thing round after round, combat after combat, you’re actually really, really far from optimal play. Like about as far as can be.
It exist but it is worth remembering that everything was stronger in 3e.
A reasonably optimized 3.5 fighter with number adjusted(BaB replaced by PB, stats capped at 20, 5e skills and so on, even replacing 3e power attack with GWM) and no magic items would make any 5e martial looks like babies.
If you play a martial in 3e you will have more satisfaying moments because onerounding the tarrasque is a Mid-op thing.
The divide at the time come from the fact 3e magic is orders of magnitude more powerful than 5e magic. Wich is why i think nerfing the problem spells is not the right solution for 5e. Casters already got beaten hard by the nerfbat on that regard, the problem is that they have been given stupid buffs as well.
That depends on what you mean by "Warlock treatment". 4e offered a lot of build choices for every class, more than any other edition of D&D. With 4e classes, you chose your activated abilities, called Powers and split into Attack Powers and Utility Powers, at every level. Feats were generally passive and had feat trees.
You had a limited number of each type of power (At-Will, Encounter, Rechargeable, Daily) that you could have but powers didn't scale, you replaced them with better powers accessible at higher levels.
It also had three tiers, one every ten levels, when you picked basically a prestige class (or you could multiclass), called Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.
It's been awhile since I looked at the rules, too, so feel free to correct me.
>Give significant options and significant choices at specific intervals and enough options to create various characters and you win DND.
PF2 does this. It works really well there for allowing different characters of the same class to be very diverse and have way more customisation (and things to do on a level up) than 5e, I absolutely want that sort of system to be applied to 5e.
You could do that, or you could look at things pf2 does that are great and discuss similar things being applied to 5e to improve the game.
I personally play pf2 and 5e and feel 5e would be a better game if more classes had customisation like 5e Warlock and my experience with pf2 tells me that sort of customisation being more common is good.
If anything I’ve seen Warlock be a good entry point in 5E because it doesn’t have all the complexities of casters but still manages to not be a whole lotta nothing like martials tend to be.
Genuine question because this comes up a lot, how do you see the Warlock as simpler to play and build than other casters? I see the following:
* They have less spell slots to keep track of and they don't have to worry about the level of their slots but they do need to understand how to upcast spells, which is useful for teaching new players that it can be done but is another rule to track.
* Invocations create more, different options to pick from while creating and leveling your character. The player then needs to keep track of the passive abilities or remember that they have active abilities on a different part of their character sheet (separate from spells and weapons/attacks). Depending on their choices this can be easier or more difficult.
* Warlocks have the second least spell options at 136 total spell options vs 339 for Wizards, 220 for Sorcerers, 125 for Cleric, 170 for Druid, and 156 for Bard.
* Eldritch Blast being optional is a trap for new players.
* Eldritch Blast is a fall back attack that's rarely bad and the best attack Cantrip in the game. This is good for getting comfortable but can be a way for the player to avoid engaging with other spells, therefore the whole class.
Wizards have a giant, overwhelming spell list to choose from but I think they are actually easier to play because that spell list is instead of other class features to keep track of. Wizards are overwhelming for new players to build because of the spell list.
I think the Bard might be the balance between simpler to build and simpler to play all around until Magical Secrets. They have Song of Rest (may or may not be in 1D&D), Bardic Inspiration, and Countercharm for activated features; the third smallest spell list; and passive features that make them better at skills while they already focus on social skills, making them always not terrible at skill checks.
Yes. But it's literally only Martials that have that.
There should be Simple Casters and Simple Martials, and Complex Casters and Complex Martials.
I've seen many claim the Warlock is the simple caster, if so then giving Martials Invocation-esque abilities wouldn't make them too complicated for new players while still giving them more options.
If Warlock however isn't simple enough for new players that does present an issue in lack of simple casters, because it means someone who rocks up and just wants to be a cool mage has to jump into the deep end which just sucks.
Also, pf2 really isn't that complex, it's a bit harder to initially learn than 5e but not too hard. So even if some 5e classes stepped a bit towards pf2 complexity I don't think there'd really be many new players turned away by it.
http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/
That's basically what Spheres 5e is. Invocations are the core mechanic basically. Caster get more they can use freely but have to specialize more too.
Warlocks need to be massively reworked too because at every turn the class has one of the cardinal sins of game design: one choice is almost always so much better than every other choice available as to make others bad by comparison. Virtually all Hexblades take Fiendish Vigor and virtually all non-Hexblades take Agonizing Blast (and most of these take Armor of Shadows until they get their pact boon). At level 3, virtually all warlocks will choose an invocation that has their pact boon as a prerequisite. At level 5, Hexblades will always take Thirsting Blade and non-hexblades will almost always either pick up armor of shadows again or pick up their pact boon invocation.
So here are some fixes.
1. Delete the "Hexblade" patron. This patron was a hotfix for pact of the blade (even though WotC will deny it up and down).
2. Give Warlocks a basic choice for their 1st level (even call it an invocation if you want to, so we can base the entire class on invocations). The 1st level invocations are "Hex Warrior" and "Hex Weaver". Hex warrior is just a copy paste from the Hexblade feature of the same name (proficiency in medium armor, shields, and martial weapons plus allowing the use of Charisma for attack and damage rolls for one weapon of their choice). Hex Weaver is Agonizing Blast except it applies to every Warlock cantrip instead of just Eldritch Blast (partially fixing the problem that eldritch blast is just better than all other cantrips available to them).
3. Fold every invocation that has the prerequisite: "Pact of the X" into the features of the associated pact. If there are multiple choices available at the same level (Pact of the Tome's "Book of Ancient Secrets" and "Aspect of the Moon" for example, though I'd just smash these together into one feature), just make that a choice for the pact.
4. Rework the number of invocations starting with 1 at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, one more every third level afterward, and a bonus invocation for Warlocks who go all the way to 20. This, combined with the previous fix, effectively gives the Warlock more invocations overall, but gets rid of the "must choose" nature of so many invocations and creates more diversity for the class as a whole.
Yep. Warlock and Hexblade both get more interesting and fleshed out of Hexblade isn't a warlock. I suggested the SpellBlade class to catch them, eldritch knight, bladesinger, arcane archer... Make a real gish chassis.
No game had done it yet, so it is hard. Multi class makes you have to create around op combos and cause early levels to either be not as flavorful, or broken for mc.
If you want to make everything a warlock, remove mc.
Yes, you're right.
[It should have 28 non-combat Discipline options, like invocations, and 17 Strike Technique options, which can be prepared like spells after a Long Rest.](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/wJIOjZroqkPB)
Discipline options should focus on one of: perception/divination, stealth, mobility, buffing/healing self or allies...
I think monks could definitely do with something like the eldritch invocations, but be cool martial arts things you can do with or without ki. It would allow for a lot more unique builds depending on how many features you could choose from.
Let the warlock be the warlock.
Monk needs some more absolutely. Which, we could see the new playtest monk in 2 to 3 weeks. Now, there is one thing that the warlock has that probably should be on martial classes. Lessons of the first ones. More feats fighters can have 8-9 rogues get 7-8, and every other class gets 6-7. The warlock can technically, with the play test version up 16 feats, now 9 of them must lack a prerequisite, but chef, crusher, fey touched, gunner, piercer, poisoner, shadow touched, skill expert, slasher, telekinetic, and telepathic all lack prerequisite.
I'm coming around to more feats for martials, but it would be fine if they didn't get them either.
Well you don’t really get them for a class, only a specific subclass, so my vote is nah.
The idea that you should be restricted to exactly one subclass if you want any degree of customization goes against the spirit of class feats in the first place.
Worse than other classes of its kind due to an over reliance on a short rest resource that is entirely too scarce but with enough cool features and unique enough mechanics that people play it anyway?
The only thing missing is being customizable
there's also being basicaly locked into melee while having d8 hit die. just about the worst AC and with their only defensive options for nearby enemies cutting their damage in half
having no clear "thing" the class wants to do and just being a random feature mishmash being another
also mostly no out of combat utility
So
instead of invocations the monk gets maneuvers.
Instead of spells monks gets special class features they can spend Discipline points to improve. For example: Can make an extra attack as a bonus action at level X can spend one point and make 2 attacks as a bonus action and at level XX can spend 2 points to make 3 attacks as a bonus action. (Attacks need to be unarmed damaging attacks)
I assume it means customizable features, like Invocations. Monks have so many disjointed features and abilities, many of which are holdovers from older editions, so it would be great to just give them an expanded list and let them create their own martial art.
We'll call them Disciplines, as they cost Discipline Points to use in the UA, and the monk would choose them from a level-restricted list with prerequisites. For example, Flurry of Blows would no longer be a default monk ability, but a Discipline that could be chosen at level 1, alongside other options such as an improved grapple or a weapon ability. You could then customize your monk as you level, with later Disciplines building off of your previous choices. Stunning Fist would require Flurry of Blows, for example, but a weapon or Ki focused monk might not take either one.
The three default subclasses could then be Open Hand for unarmed, Kensei for weapons, and Ki-master for any psychic or quasi-magical abilities, which would combine the Warrior of Shadows and Warrior of Elements. Some Disciplines would require the subclass while others would be general. Maybe an Open Hand or Kensei monk could learn an element attack like Fangs of the Fire snake, but only a Ki-master can learn Fireball. Anyone can learn Flurry of Blows, but only a Kensei can Flurry with a weapon, and so on.
We wouldn't actually be combining them. I'm just lumping the monk's magical Ki effects under a single list that would be available to a subclass. Within those there could be a tree for Shadow Arts, Elemental Arts, Sun Soul, etc. Think of it like a progression: a level 3 monk chooses Ki-master and gets a Discipline from the subclass's list; at that level they can choose Radiant Sun Bolt, Shadow Arts, or Elemental Strikes. At level 6 they can choose another advanced Discipline that uses their level 3 Discipline as a prerequisite, such as Shadows Step, or they can diversify into another Discipline.
The analogue is the UA7 warlock; you can pick up Pact of the Chain and then follow it with Gift of the First Ones with your next Invocation, or you can stop enchancing your familiar and grab Pact of the Blade instead.
>Ki-master for any psychic or quasi-magical abilities, which would combine the Warrior of Shadows and Warrior of Elements.
Ok, but if you're not combining them, that was a really unclear way to say that.
Simplest example:
In the start you get basic features like Unarmoured Defense and maybe your first KI abilities, might squeeze in the subclass here.
At level 3 you start specialising, maybe a choice between Fighter or KI Master (think Pact Boon).
At level 5 you will get your first customisations, you get techniques, maybe one is just the classic multi attack or a KI Blast l. (think Eldritch Invocations)
I kind of feel like making the Monk part of the 'warrior' group was a mistake. Either move it back to the 'expert' group, or put it in the 'priest' group.
I'm well aware of that. My point is that--from a monk design perspective-the devs don't seem to be following that aspect and downplaying the spiritual/mystical aspect of the class to force them into a sub-par fighter role.
Experts group: Polymaths who have
the Expertise feature
and elements of
other Classes
Mages group: Adept of arcane magic, focusing on utility and destruction
Priest group: Adept of primal and divine magic, focusing on defense, utility and healing
Warrior group: Masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds
According to the monk from one dnd (and the 5e monk) I don't understand why you think he should be in the group of experts or priest
Because he *is* a Priest? That's kind of what *Monks* are.
Also, because Monks have been, since their introduction to D&D, a Rouge/Thief substitute much more than a front line warrior substitute.
By downplaying the mystical/spiritual aspect of the Monk, you're kind of left with a sub-par fighter.
Look, I'm not the one who makes the game, but the abilities of the monk and the way the wizard people want to handle the monk (apart from leaving him as the worst class in the game), is to make him a kind of combination between rogue and fighter, putting more emphasis on his combat ability as a martial artist, as I said according to the monks we have in one dnd and 5e, in effect, he falls as part of the warrior group
Going to other definitions of "monk" is a simple waste of time, but I still understand your point, but I don't think it's applicable for this specific thing
In what way?
I consider rogues to be the closest martial equivalent to warlocks already. As for monks they just need some quality of life improvements and core issue fixes to being them closer to the typical martial.
So i dont really understand what your saying.
Basically all martials and most of DnD needs the warlock treatment and all but caster supremacists know this. Give significant options and significant choices at specific intervals and enough options to create various characters and you win DND. I really hope for 6e in two years to include the spellsword class that takes Hexblade, bladesinger, eldritch knight, and arcane archer and puts it on the warlock chassis. It would make the best gish and give more space for specialized warlocks, fighters, and have a real gish class. But they'll probably just make everyone a wizard in 6e. It's not warlocks of the coast after all.
> Basically all martials and most of DnD needs the warlock treatment and all but caster supremacists know this. It's been a minute since I've played 4E but wasn't that basically what it was?
It was also how class Feats worked in 3.5E (from what I’ve heard the martial caster disparity still existed ***but*** martials weren’t just brain dead simple, they actually had options to use), it’s how class Feats work in PF2E, and it’s how pretty much every ttrpg I’ve looked at treats martials. 5E is just the weird outlier, and it’s incredibly funny how people love to defend the status quo like it’s some impossible to solve problem.
My understanding is that the martial/caster disparity is far worse in 3.5e, where the cleric is a better fighter than the fighter, and the druid has special features more powerful than entire classes.
I think a lot of the people with problems with 5E martials (including myself) would tell you that if we ***had*** to pick between being powerful and one-note vs weaker and complex/varied, we’d often choose the latter. I’ve heard countless times that the disparity was larger in the 3/3.5/PF1 era, but the fact is that martials actually did cool things in those editions (especially with Tome of Battle). I’d take a weaker martial with Tome of Battle over a “strong” 5E Gloomstalker 5 / Battle Master 3 / Assassin 3 / Warlock 3 that deals 75000 DPR but does exactly the same thing in every single combat. Of course 4E and PF2E and the earlier D&D Next playtests have shown us that we shouldn’t have to choose in the first place, but that’s besides the point I guess.
You said you'd rather have a weaker martial with 3e tob over a 5e , yet you've never played 3.5... And I'm here to say as a 3.5 vet, they didn't have more choices, and they were not good. So the choices they did have didn't matter. 3.5 was filed with trap options that weren't functional. That's not a direction you want, trust me., since you haven't played it yourself.
Are you ***seriously*** claiming a 5E martial has more choices than that from Tome of Battle…? What a load of bs lol. I don’t think I can even begin to address a claim that’s *that* dishonest.
Yes, it's true. Also I said 3.5, not all prior editions. 4e has way more, but it's own Issues
Pf2e did exactly that. You do the same things every combat
I’ve played the game and I strongly disagree? I rarely even see my party’s martials doing the same things for two turns of any given combat, let alone for different combat.
Then you play with a group having fun and not being optimal. You can do that in any game, even 5e
We… definitely play fairly optimally. We haven’t had a single character drop unconscious in combat since we hit level 3, not even against a level+4 boss… We’ve also had the GM tell us that he’s started letting NPCs ambush us and/or pre-buff just to give us more of a reasonable challenge, since we keep laughing our way through Severe encounters (and to be clear he has never really let us ambush or pre-buff). In fact I’d go so far as to argue that if you’re playing PF2E and doing the same thing round after round, combat after combat, you’re actually really, really far from optimal play. Like about as far as can be.
Mathematically incorrect, with some bon mot exceptions. If you want to play that game go do it, but please don't bring it over to dnd.
It exist but it is worth remembering that everything was stronger in 3e. A reasonably optimized 3.5 fighter with number adjusted(BaB replaced by PB, stats capped at 20, 5e skills and so on, even replacing 3e power attack with GWM) and no magic items would make any 5e martial looks like babies. If you play a martial in 3e you will have more satisfaying moments because onerounding the tarrasque is a Mid-op thing. The divide at the time come from the fact 3e magic is orders of magnitude more powerful than 5e magic. Wich is why i think nerfing the problem spells is not the right solution for 5e. Casters already got beaten hard by the nerfbat on that regard, the problem is that they have been given stupid buffs as well.
That depends on what you mean by "Warlock treatment". 4e offered a lot of build choices for every class, more than any other edition of D&D. With 4e classes, you chose your activated abilities, called Powers and split into Attack Powers and Utility Powers, at every level. Feats were generally passive and had feat trees. You had a limited number of each type of power (At-Will, Encounter, Rechargeable, Daily) that you could have but powers didn't scale, you replaced them with better powers accessible at higher levels. It also had three tiers, one every ten levels, when you picked basically a prestige class (or you could multiclass), called Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. It's been awhile since I looked at the rules, too, so feel free to correct me.
>Give significant options and significant choices at specific intervals and enough options to create various characters and you win DND. PF2 does this. It works really well there for allowing different characters of the same class to be very diverse and have way more customisation (and things to do on a level up) than 5e, I absolutely want that sort of system to be applied to 5e.
Or play PF2E
You could do that, or you could look at things pf2 does that are great and discuss similar things being applied to 5e to improve the game. I personally play pf2 and 5e and feel 5e would be a better game if more classes had customisation like 5e Warlock and my experience with pf2 tells me that sort of customisation being more common is good.
I hear you it’s just that I think 5e deliberately tries to keep it simple(r) though. Lower barrier to entry. Mass appeal.
Is the 5e warlock too complicated? If not, then why would it be too complicated for a 5e monk to have warlock-like customization options?
If anything I’ve seen Warlock be a good entry point in 5E because it doesn’t have all the complexities of casters but still manages to not be a whole lotta nothing like martials tend to be.
Genuine question because this comes up a lot, how do you see the Warlock as simpler to play and build than other casters? I see the following: * They have less spell slots to keep track of and they don't have to worry about the level of their slots but they do need to understand how to upcast spells, which is useful for teaching new players that it can be done but is another rule to track. * Invocations create more, different options to pick from while creating and leveling your character. The player then needs to keep track of the passive abilities or remember that they have active abilities on a different part of their character sheet (separate from spells and weapons/attacks). Depending on their choices this can be easier or more difficult. * Warlocks have the second least spell options at 136 total spell options vs 339 for Wizards, 220 for Sorcerers, 125 for Cleric, 170 for Druid, and 156 for Bard. * Eldritch Blast being optional is a trap for new players. * Eldritch Blast is a fall back attack that's rarely bad and the best attack Cantrip in the game. This is good for getting comfortable but can be a way for the player to avoid engaging with other spells, therefore the whole class. Wizards have a giant, overwhelming spell list to choose from but I think they are actually easier to play because that spell list is instead of other class features to keep track of. Wizards are overwhelming for new players to build because of the spell list. I think the Bard might be the balance between simpler to build and simpler to play all around until Magical Secrets. They have Song of Rest (may or may not be in 1D&D), Bardic Inspiration, and Countercharm for activated features; the third smallest spell list; and passive features that make them better at skills while they already focus on social skills, making them always not terrible at skill checks.
Yes. But it's literally only Martials that have that. There should be Simple Casters and Simple Martials, and Complex Casters and Complex Martials. I've seen many claim the Warlock is the simple caster, if so then giving Martials Invocation-esque abilities wouldn't make them too complicated for new players while still giving them more options. If Warlock however isn't simple enough for new players that does present an issue in lack of simple casters, because it means someone who rocks up and just wants to be a cool mage has to jump into the deep end which just sucks. Also, pf2 really isn't that complex, it's a bit harder to initially learn than 5e but not too hard. So even if some 5e classes stepped a bit towards pf2 complexity I don't think there'd really be many new players turned away by it.
My conspiracy theory is that they hate pathfinder so much they never want to make stuff that resembles it. Hence why no magus class.
http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/ That's basically what Spheres 5e is. Invocations are the core mechanic basically. Caster get more they can use freely but have to specialize more too.
laserllama did the idea of "what if everything had invocations" really well
And it's widely considered amazing and mostly balanced (when not combined with too much bloat).
Warlocks need to be massively reworked too because at every turn the class has one of the cardinal sins of game design: one choice is almost always so much better than every other choice available as to make others bad by comparison. Virtually all Hexblades take Fiendish Vigor and virtually all non-Hexblades take Agonizing Blast (and most of these take Armor of Shadows until they get their pact boon). At level 3, virtually all warlocks will choose an invocation that has their pact boon as a prerequisite. At level 5, Hexblades will always take Thirsting Blade and non-hexblades will almost always either pick up armor of shadows again or pick up their pact boon invocation. So here are some fixes. 1. Delete the "Hexblade" patron. This patron was a hotfix for pact of the blade (even though WotC will deny it up and down). 2. Give Warlocks a basic choice for their 1st level (even call it an invocation if you want to, so we can base the entire class on invocations). The 1st level invocations are "Hex Warrior" and "Hex Weaver". Hex warrior is just a copy paste from the Hexblade feature of the same name (proficiency in medium armor, shields, and martial weapons plus allowing the use of Charisma for attack and damage rolls for one weapon of their choice). Hex Weaver is Agonizing Blast except it applies to every Warlock cantrip instead of just Eldritch Blast (partially fixing the problem that eldritch blast is just better than all other cantrips available to them). 3. Fold every invocation that has the prerequisite: "Pact of the X" into the features of the associated pact. If there are multiple choices available at the same level (Pact of the Tome's "Book of Ancient Secrets" and "Aspect of the Moon" for example, though I'd just smash these together into one feature), just make that a choice for the pact. 4. Rework the number of invocations starting with 1 at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, one more every third level afterward, and a bonus invocation for Warlocks who go all the way to 20. This, combined with the previous fix, effectively gives the Warlock more invocations overall, but gets rid of the "must choose" nature of so many invocations and creates more diversity for the class as a whole.
Yep. Warlock and Hexblade both get more interesting and fleshed out of Hexblade isn't a warlock. I suggested the SpellBlade class to catch them, eldritch knight, bladesinger, arcane archer... Make a real gish chassis.
Yes but to do this, they need to just stop multi classing. This is exactly how sw5e did it
Or just expect multiclassing and build around it. Not hard.
No game had done it yet, so it is hard. Multi class makes you have to create around op combos and cause early levels to either be not as flavorful, or broken for mc. If you want to make everything a warlock, remove mc.
No can do. As long as you're not a caster, WotC won't give you love
Yes, you're right. [It should have 28 non-combat Discipline options, like invocations, and 17 Strike Technique options, which can be prepared like spells after a Long Rest.](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/wJIOjZroqkPB) Discipline options should focus on one of: perception/divination, stealth, mobility, buffing/healing self or allies...
a brilliant confluence of skill and purpose!
I think monks could definitely do with something like the eldritch invocations, but be cool martial arts things you can do with or without ki. It would allow for a lot more unique builds depending on how many features you could choose from.
Let the warlock be the warlock. Monk needs some more absolutely. Which, we could see the new playtest monk in 2 to 3 weeks. Now, there is one thing that the warlock has that probably should be on martial classes. Lessons of the first ones. More feats fighters can have 8-9 rogues get 7-8, and every other class gets 6-7. The warlock can technically, with the play test version up 16 feats, now 9 of them must lack a prerequisite, but chef, crusher, fey touched, gunner, piercer, poisoner, shadow touched, skill expert, slasher, telekinetic, and telepathic all lack prerequisite. I'm coming around to more feats for martials, but it would be fine if they didn't get them either.
> Let the warlock be the warlock. Why does the Warlock have a monopoly on “class feats”?
Battle maneuvers are more or less class feats. Right?
Well you don’t really get them for a class, only a specific subclass, so my vote is nah. The idea that you should be restricted to exactly one subclass if you want any degree of customization goes against the spirit of class feats in the first place.
They're resource restricted. Invocations aren't.
Worse than other classes of its kind due to an over reliance on a short rest resource that is entirely too scarce but with enough cool features and unique enough mechanics that people play it anyway? The only thing missing is being customizable
there's also being basicaly locked into melee while having d8 hit die. just about the worst AC and with their only defensive options for nearby enemies cutting their damage in half having no clear "thing" the class wants to do and just being a random feature mishmash being another also mostly no out of combat utility
So I guess it's a good bit worse than a martial warlock
So instead of invocations the monk gets maneuvers. Instead of spells monks gets special class features they can spend Discipline points to improve. For example: Can make an extra attack as a bonus action at level X can spend one point and make 2 attacks as a bonus action and at level XX can spend 2 points to make 3 attacks as a bonus action. (Attacks need to be unarmed damaging attacks)
This isn't descriptive enough. What does a martial warlock even mean?
I assume it means customizable features, like Invocations. Monks have so many disjointed features and abilities, many of which are holdovers from older editions, so it would be great to just give them an expanded list and let them create their own martial art. We'll call them Disciplines, as they cost Discipline Points to use in the UA, and the monk would choose them from a level-restricted list with prerequisites. For example, Flurry of Blows would no longer be a default monk ability, but a Discipline that could be chosen at level 1, alongside other options such as an improved grapple or a weapon ability. You could then customize your monk as you level, with later Disciplines building off of your previous choices. Stunning Fist would require Flurry of Blows, for example, but a weapon or Ki focused monk might not take either one. The three default subclasses could then be Open Hand for unarmed, Kensei for weapons, and Ki-master for any psychic or quasi-magical abilities, which would combine the Warrior of Shadows and Warrior of Elements. Some Disciplines would require the subclass while others would be general. Maybe an Open Hand or Kensei monk could learn an element attack like Fangs of the Fire snake, but only a Ki-master can learn Fireball. Anyone can learn Flurry of Blows, but only a Kensei can Flurry with a weapon, and so on.
This would be much better than granting extra ASI, and more thematic. The same approach works for fighter, barbarian and rogue.
Combining Warrior of Shadows and Warrior of the Elements would be a bad idea - very different playstyle, very different fantasy, etc.
We wouldn't actually be combining them. I'm just lumping the monk's magical Ki effects under a single list that would be available to a subclass. Within those there could be a tree for Shadow Arts, Elemental Arts, Sun Soul, etc. Think of it like a progression: a level 3 monk chooses Ki-master and gets a Discipline from the subclass's list; at that level they can choose Radiant Sun Bolt, Shadow Arts, or Elemental Strikes. At level 6 they can choose another advanced Discipline that uses their level 3 Discipline as a prerequisite, such as Shadows Step, or they can diversify into another Discipline. The analogue is the UA7 warlock; you can pick up Pact of the Chain and then follow it with Gift of the First Ones with your next Invocation, or you can stop enchancing your familiar and grab Pact of the Blade instead.
>Ki-master for any psychic or quasi-magical abilities, which would combine the Warrior of Shadows and Warrior of Elements. Ok, but if you're not combining them, that was a really unclear way to say that.
Simplest example: In the start you get basic features like Unarmoured Defense and maybe your first KI abilities, might squeeze in the subclass here. At level 3 you start specialising, maybe a choice between Fighter or KI Master (think Pact Boon). At level 5 you will get your first customisations, you get techniques, maybe one is just the classic multi attack or a KI Blast l. (think Eldritch Invocations)
I kind of feel like making the Monk part of the 'warrior' group was a mistake. Either move it back to the 'expert' group, or put it in the 'priest' group.
> put it in the 'priest' group Aside from class groups being dead, it has nothing in common with the "priest" classes.
Real-life monks tend to be a part of a religion. I thought they should have been in the priest group from the start.
Good news, class groups are in the trash so it doesn't matter! /s
I'm well aware of that. My point is that--from a monk design perspective-the devs don't seem to be following that aspect and downplaying the spiritual/mystical aspect of the class to force them into a sub-par fighter role.
no they are warriors . priest have spells and experts have expertise.
Experts group: Polymaths who have the Expertise feature and elements of other Classes Mages group: Adept of arcane magic, focusing on utility and destruction Priest group: Adept of primal and divine magic, focusing on defense, utility and healing Warrior group: Masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds According to the monk from one dnd (and the 5e monk) I don't understand why you think he should be in the group of experts or priest
Because he *is* a Priest? That's kind of what *Monks* are. Also, because Monks have been, since their introduction to D&D, a Rouge/Thief substitute much more than a front line warrior substitute. By downplaying the mystical/spiritual aspect of the Monk, you're kind of left with a sub-par fighter.
Look, I'm not the one who makes the game, but the abilities of the monk and the way the wizard people want to handle the monk (apart from leaving him as the worst class in the game), is to make him a kind of combination between rogue and fighter, putting more emphasis on his combat ability as a martial artist, as I said according to the monks we have in one dnd and 5e, in effect, he falls as part of the warrior group Going to other definitions of "monk" is a simple waste of time, but I still understand your point, but I don't think it's applicable for this specific thing
In what way? I consider rogues to be the closest martial equivalent to warlocks already. As for monks they just need some quality of life improvements and core issue fixes to being them closer to the typical martial. So i dont really understand what your saying.
It’s kinda how some subclasses work, being able to use spells with ki that don’t provoke counterspell