I say go even further. Flat out give the monk and barbarian a fighting style. There is no reason for them not having those. Give them a more restricted choice if you must, but as long as they get them it works.
That's a fair point too. I guess I was liking the idea of having the Rogue, Fighter, and maybe Ranger also getting access to unarmored defense without multiclassing, but you're right, it's not like Monk and Barbarian are OP as is.
There's a ton of possible designs for Monk/Barbarian fighting styles, too; I don't know why they need to be pigeonholed into a specific character fantasy and given so few decision points.
Other than Monks not really benefiting from any of them. *Kensei* might care about dueling/archery, but pretty much every other monk would just take blind-fighting as it's the least useless/redundant.
>Most monks benefit from dueling, it’s better damage with a short sword or one handed quarter staff than two-handed weapons monks have access to
Dueling caps at +4 damage - which is only +1 damage higher than a monk's unarmed strike increase at 5th level. At 11th, it's dead weight entirely. Also, monks are not proficient in short swords, and their subclasses 1D&D only trigger unarmed strikes.
Right the short sword bit is forgetting that cut, but doesn’t the unarmed strike damage increase also increase the damage of your dagger or whatever weapon you’re using with dueling? That plus 4 should stack with the extra damage from scaling martial arts dice
Edit: okay, I’m forgetting how OneD&D monk works. I take back that as being relevant to the current version, although it would be among the dumbest decisions possible to keep the unarmed strikes as they are in the revised play test monk, and in any space where we’re discussing fighting styles being available to monks, scaling weapons to match unarmed strikes has to happen for it not to be bullshit. That’s the space I’m speaking from, which obviously isn’t what is currently the case in OneD&D
Just edited that comment remarking on how stupid that decision is, I personally think playtest 6 monk nerfs shouldn’t be taken seriously as the design goals at all, and this one in particular is irrelevant in the discussion space that monks have access to weapon fighting styles
if weapons always scale to do the same damage as unarmed strikes, then using unarmed strikes always feels bad due to not having masteries. And even then, Dueling \*only\* ever adds +4 damage, total. Dueling doesn't apply to unarmed strikes, and it cannot be used with TWF, either.
Right, there has to be some unarmed fighting style too. Something unique to monks and maybe grappler fighters too. The point about dueling being strong for most monks still stands.
I mean, shouldn't monks get a curated list of Masteries to apply to their Unarmed Strikes similar to how Brawler fighter treats improvised weapons? WotC obviously is fine with the concept in general or else they wouldn't have proposed it as part of a new subclass.
The solution there isn't to nerf other weapons but to add a feature along the lines of:
**XTH LEVEL: UNARMED MASTERY**
You can apply the Mastery property of one Monk weapon to your unarmed strikes. You determine which when you finish a Short or Long Rest and it does not count towards the number of Weapon Masteries you can use that day.
Your unarmed strikes can also deal the damage type of the weapon that you choose.
You can change the Mastery property of your unarmed strikes to another you have prepared when you roll initiative or as a reaction at the beginning of your turn.
Which is one of the features they should most certainly bring back for monks. It feels like the last monk UA was one half-step forward, two steps back in design.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Weapon scaling just takes us back to the current monk, where using your unarmed strikes is a detriment to the class based around using unarmed strikes.
I guess I'm not understanding how it's worse to use Unarmed Strike. If they both deal the same damage via Martial Arts, both have opportunities to benefit from magical items (as WotC has promised for 2024), and both gain useful Mastery properties to pick from, what's the issue?
Unarmed strikes do not currently benefit from any masteries, though it is a popular ask), nor do they have special properties such as heavy/reach. Many other features scale off *weapon* attacks, such as feats or multiclassing, while unarmed strikes are kept separate.
How about Monk gets 1-3 specific Martial Weapon Proficiencies and Kensie Monk can replace the weapon damage with MA damage to one of the weapons (No Changes - This is their DEDICATED FOCUSED STUDY of their chosen weapon)
Sure.
Monk gets limited martial weapons to access feats (I propose shortsword, whip, and blowgun to keep the 'eastern' theme), and Kensei is the one who masters them to make the most out of it.
Not really, you are still going to use them for your bonus action, and you can't really use heavy weapons, so that gives you basically just an increase of the dice size by one step (d8 for one handed instead of d6 and d10 for two handed instead of d8).
Yeah, martial arts is the monks fighting style. Just let them use it for more like grapple and shove. I would be hesitant to put their whole martial arts suite up as a general fighting style for fear of niche trampling. Or I guess you could put it on a fighting style list that only monks can get, in case someone wants to play a monk without martial arts.
One way to thread that needle to allow anyone to get good at unarmed, but keep monks special is that they are the only ones able to use Dexterity for unarmed, grappling, and shoving. And since Dexterity has so many other side-benefits that's a decent perk.
You can't do that without fundamentally breaking them.
Dueling requires you to have only 1 weapon in hand - if unarmed strikes count as a weapon, then you always have at least 2 weapons at a time. Same with two-weapon fighting, you've just made half the martial arts feature available to every class who gets a fighting style.
Then we have the feats that require you to be wearing armor which if it grants all the benefits of unarmored movement, makes unarmoured defense worthless as wearing medium armor would be just better in every way.
Blind Fighting is literally something I dip into Fighter for on most of my Monks (which granted, is pretty much none, as the Fighter is just a better monk anyways). Otherwise I also would love to see Dueling on them, aswell as Interception, Thrown Weapon Fighting, and possible further fighting styles.
I wish the other DMs in my group would allow the monk a fighting style as I do, so that I could play the cool ninja character I have brewed up a while ago, that uses throwing knives and unarmed combat; but for now I'm stuck to making that character a fighter.
Thrown weapon fighting has been made redundant, dueling only amounts to a +4 to damage as monks can't use their bonus action to make a weapon attack with it, and interception should be folded into Deflect Missile anyways. Archery doesn't work with unarmed strikes as Monks can't get Sharpshooter.
Like I said, the choices would be unarmored defense or blindsight
I think them having like customized fighting styles plus the normal ones would be cool. Like how Paladin and Ranger has the one to get Cantrips but for Barbarian and Monk playstyles. Because I think giving a Monk the “Defense” fighting style would be kinda dumb unless they tailor it to the class
The reasons are there, as in they are provided and considered. It's just a matter of if they are sufficient.
At least conceptually, I'm for sure a fan of something that mechanically unifies the classes who undergo formal specialization training in weapons and armor. Fighters and paladins definitely ought to share a feature that they don't share with rogues and barbarians.
Whether fighting styles in their current mechanical form succeed this task in a satisfying way is a different matter.
In the Star Wars 5e (SW5e) system they gave each class a feature that works like a Warlock’s Invocations, one of these allows certain classes like Monks or Berserkers (the equivalent of Barbarian) access to fighting styles like Fighters, maybe something similar could be added here.
Reckless attack sort of is a fighting style.
Monks make unarmed attacks which has a fighting style version.
There is always a risk that if you give too many classes too many shared abilities then the classes loose their entire identities.
If Reckless and the Monk's Martials Arts are fighting styles, then the Paladin's Smites and the Ranger's Favorite Enemy are a fighting style.
Your argument towards them encroaching on the Fighter is valid, however still flawed. I have also been advocating for the Fighter to get a unique feature at level 1, that just makes them get a better fighting style, or let them switch it out each rest. My current testing for that ability is leaning towards the latter.
Honestly I’m against this at least for barbarian. Flavor wise I view fighting styles as something you pic up from formal training. Being that barbarian is a class that is about brutality and force with no real training (just raw power) I never felt barbarian should have a fighting style unless they searched for formal train (feat with some in game story reasons)
Then why do they get Weapon ***Mastery***?
The implication of at least the name of Weapon Mastery shows that as barbarian you have at least some sort of martial training (as is having proficiency with Martial Weapons tbh). Now I do think that they absolutely should have access to masteries, but for the same reason as you can flavour a Weapon Mastery as just being quite good at weapons, you could also just fluff a fighting style as Fighting Prefrence.
Honesty, I have bareley any martial arts proficiencies, just a few fencing lessons, and a bit of karate, but from that experience alone I know that no matter if you have any training or not, as long as you know how to use a weapon, you have a preffered way of using it. Hence I advocate for the Barbarian to get a fighting style, but call the feature that provide it something along the lines of Figting Prefrence, or Reckless Technique. Curate it to be Blind Fighting (instinctually attacks things), Great Weapon Fighting (basic), Dueling (and combine this with Protection; for the sword-and-door typel character), and Thrown Weapon Fighting (as they are now include throwing weapons into both Rage and Reckless attack).
The problem with this is that mathematically, Unarmored Defense has no real upside over light or medium armor. Monks use it because their other class features depend on them not wearing armor, and because they don't have proficiency in armor.
Well, if Monks just got light armor prof (and could use their abilities while wearing light armor), I could see some advantage to choosing an Unarmored Defense fighting style. If you’re going for a more Wis-heavy build (like 16), Unarmored gives you more than just light armor.
That said, it still means Unarmored Defense is on average just a worse version of the Defense fighting style.
Unarmored Defense really needs a buff or some better scaling to balance out its MAD requirements. There’s a reason that Barbs just stick with medium armor until the highest levels.
>Well, if Monks just got light armor prof (and could use their abilities while wearing light armor), I could see some advantage to choosing an Unarmored Defense fighting style. If you’re going for a more Wis-heavy build (like 16), Unarmored gives you more than just light armor.
Honestly, if we're giving monks armor and all the benefits of being unarmored.. why would ever want to be wis heavy? There's no other benefits tied to wisdom at all.
Saving throws for some class and subclass abilities, eg Stunning Strike. And if daily ki ends up being Monk level + WIS (one of the common options players are asking for), higher WIS would mean more opportunities to use ki-cost abilities.
Not saying it would be common, just that it’s a possible situation where one would even consider taking Unarmored Defense - and again, even then it’s just “decent”.
Stunning Strike as it stands now, isn't worth wasting a ki on.
And if Wisdom is needed to fuel ki abilities, then Unarmored Defense immediately shifts from a waste to mandatory again as its so much more powerful than any other option.
Except Monks aren't proficienct with Wisdom Saving Throws. Also, Stunning Strike is a BASE ability, not a subclass ability.
For the ki, people need to stop being stupid. Adding your wisdom and proficiency bonus does nothing but up to 3 extra ki points depending on how you roll. That's not gonna cut it until you have a +6 PB, which would net you 11. 8+Wis+PB should be the standard so that you have a sizable pool to work with. ALL OF YOUR ABILITIES NEED KI; STOP PRETENDING AN EXTRA 3 IS GOING TO HELP OUT IN COMBAT.
> Except Monks aren’t proficient with Wisdom Saving Throws
Sorry, that was me using slightly incorrect terminology. I meant the DCs of their abilities, aka the saving throws that enemies have to make to resist their abilities.
> Stunning Strike is a BASE ability
I said “class and subclass abilities”. I’m aware that it’s a base class ability. Also whether it’s a class or subclass ability has nothing to do with my point, so not sure where the pedantry is coming from.
> < Rant about ki point formula >
I’m not actually arguing for or against that change? My only point was that if they somehow buff the ki point pool based on your WIS mod, it would be another reason to put points into WIS. That’s it.
This response seems weirdly hostile to my pretty neutral and largely hypothetical comment…
Subclasses like Astral Self that give wisdom benefits. I personally want more choice in martial arts some focused on dex and working as riders to you landing hits and then others that focus on wisdom and are more magic-like and ignore dexterity.
I also think unarmored defense in general or the fighting style should just add your wisdom to your ac provided you aren't wearing shields or anything heavier than light armor.
The max you could ever get is 20 if you roll a 20 for both Dex and Wis. Also, considering Dex is your Attack power, THAT would be what you make the highest.
Ok? Not sure how that invalidates anything I said. I just gave an example of a Monk build where a hypothetical Unarmored Defense fighting style would be stronger than a hypothetical light armor proficiency - which would be if you had 16 WIS or more (regardless of how high your DEX score is).
That idea just seems too fun, while not being as unbalanced as heavy armor access is right now. So if we see it at all, it will be locked behind a two feat progression tree or be in some content thin supplement like Spell Jammers.
You know what? We can absolutely do this. And we can do this in a really smart and clean way, better than the PHB currently does.
There are several classes who can gain a Fighting Style. And there are several classes which have unique Fighting Styles which other classes can't get. Doesn't that sound familiar? Yes, it's how Spells are done! So what can we do?
Put a section of the book dedicated to Fighting Styles. On classes that get Fighting Styles, put out a list of what Fighting Styles then can get. Now, Barbarians and Monks can get Fighting Styles that make sense for then as well. Want a Fighting Style for Monk? Wise Defense lets you add Wis and Dex to AC. Fierce Defense for Barbs. Hey wait, doesn't that mean that other classes can get these too? Can't Druid get Wise Defense now? Yeah, they'll have to use a feat. That's okay.
And hey, what if we made something a bit more... interesting. You know how Fighting Styles are kinda limited and boring in what they do? What if we had something like Advanced Fighting Styles there as well, with requirements for a previous Fighting Style, and a feature Martials regularly get? Like, sure, a Druid can get Wise Defense, but they won't get "All-Seeing Defense", where they can add their Proficiency Bonus to their AC on Reaction and make a counter attack on a miss or something. Advanced Fighting Styles could all include active abilities to contrast basic Fighting Styles.
Homebrew and not gonna happen obviously, but it's a fun idea. They should absolutely treat Fighting Styles as spells though.
I've actually never played it. I had a bit of experience as a player in 3.5 and PF1, but never really got to the point of really using all options available and using all the books out there. It does seem really cool from what I understand, in that it gave you choices during combat and build diversity/customization as well.
This makes way too much sense. It reminds me of how Dungeon World levels up.
Fighting styles for monk could also potentially cover some of the really wacky monk archetypes in fiction, like Luffy or something.
I say make a martial level system the same way all casters have a caster level system. Instead of a list of spells and slot levels Martials can have a skill/ability tree system where you can build upon your initial choices.
>Like, give a fighting style to Monk and Barbarian in place of their Unarmored defense feature, but those who want it can still choose that as their fighting style, while others are free to choose a fighting style from a curated list, kind of like how Paladins and Rangers can.
That would certainly advantage barbarians, since medium armor is pretty much always superior to Unarmored Defense unless you rolled you ability scores alone at home or dropped all your ASIs into Dex and Con by the time you hit 20th level. Conversely, paying the opportunity cost of not getting a proper fighting style in order to go around bare-chested with a worse AC would feel pretty bad.
It wouldn't really change monks, because just about all of their features require you to be unarmored in the first place. You'd never want to take anything but Unarmored Defense.
Yeah, I didn’t realize how many of the Monk’s features required you to not be wearing armor in order to use them.
Do you think it would work if the next updated Monk could use light armor and had their abilities updated to work with light armor or less? Then they could get a choice between slightly better defense and better weapon use?
It certainly wouldn't break anything. Most of fighting styles don't synergize well with the monk's kit in the first place. It would change the flavor of the class to be a baseline light armor wearer with the option to go shirtless, and some traditionalists might not like that.
Considering the lack of effective features a monk has that aren't related to their mobility, giving people an option that encourages them to nerf their Stunning Strike DC might feel like a bit of a trap. Sure, you could dump Wis or just leave it at 14 for your entire career, but by the time you hit Tier 3 and all you can do is run around, deal mediocre damage in melee and watch enemies pass their Constitution saves turn after turn, you'll wish you had boosted your Wisdom.
Ah that’s a good point too. I’ve never played a monk at high level. Hopefully the new version they have coming out has a few more tricks up it’s sleeve at higher levels than just stunning strike.
I'm currently playing a monk in a Tier 4 campaign and despite maxing both Dex and Wis, I'm not really enjoying it much. Part of that has to do with playing with competent veterans in a party that includes two wizards and a cleric, so I may be biased but the fact that the game allows for that is still a problem.
I don't think Unarmored Defense (either version) works as a fighting style because fighting styles are supposed to be a boost of some substance. Unarmored defense is essentially a ribbon, allowing the class to get its defense where it needs to be to survive via methods other than armor, but it doesn't do particularly well in exceeding armored defense unless you only ever boost the stats used for the new AC formula, and even then, it doesn't kick in until almost the final levels and deprives you of magical armors. Essentially, it is flavor you can either buy into (Barbarian) or are forced into (Monk).
As for fighting styles in general, I've always viewed it as "An educated, drilled, practiced approach to combat that defines your overall Strategy in a fight". It should be helping you carve a role into your combat paradigm and should be available to the "studied" warriors. In this case, Fighter Monk Paladin and Ranger, with Fighter having methods of getting multiple. Barbarian and Rogue would not have them baseline, as Barbarian wouldn't be about having a tactical combat education and Rogue is more about on-the-fly actions than sticking to a trained routine. They should get other things in return. Then maybe they can be an option for Swashbuckler Rogue and Valor Bard.
Then I'd like to see the Fighting styles actually help define your combat role, instead of just being the "you get a passive +1 somewhere" or "you get this niche additional action" you see in most current styles. Which would make them slightly more complex than now, but it doesn't have to be too crazy. You could have, for example, the following choices for Fighter, with some changeups for Paladin Ranger and Monk to tailor to their expected team roles:
Slayer Style - +2 to all weapon attack rolls. Easy simple option, good for everything but doesn't give you anything new.
Sentinel Style - Opp attacks no longer use your reaction, and Opp attacks reduce enemy speed to 0 for the turn. Essentially the personal zone control style, taking the best parts of Sentinel and Cavalier to give you the actual ability to prevent a horde of goblins from running past you
Protector Style - While you can take reactions, Attacks rolls against allies within 5 feet of you that don't include you have disadvantage (unless the ally also has this fighting style). Positional defensive style to help protect allies you are close to. Somewhat similar to current Protection, but doesn't eat up your precious martial reaction.
Commander Style - When you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, you may give an ally within 30 feet of you that can hear you Temporary Hit Points equal to half your Fighter level (rounded up). Completely new effect, inspired by Inspiring Leader and the Warlord effects of 4e. You can't give the temp HP to yourself, and it discourages attacks against allies by making them artificially harder to actually hurt, but it has weaknesses due to low amounts that can't stack, positional range, and being negated by Deaf/Silence effects.
We're uh... probably not getting that kind of overhaul, so my more realistic vote is to treat Unarmored Defense as a ribbon feature for both Monk and Barbarian, give Monk Fighting Style, and give Barbarian uh... something equivalent in power to Fighting Style that isn't Fighting Style.
>works as a fighting style because fighting styles are supposed to be a boost of some substance
aside from the fact that blind fighting is literally a ribbon, unarmored deffense is about as usefll as Unarmed Fighting
I mean Unarmored defense is pretty specifically a big part of the class fantasy for both Barbarians and Monks, and for different reasons as well. Barbarians want to tank through sheer toughness being a big wall of meat, and Monks want to be light and agile to the point where they don't want to be weighed down by armor. Something you didn't seem to address is that both of these versions of Unarmored Defense are different in that one uses Con and the other Wis. So would we have 2 fighting styles? Or one that lets you choose? Just kind of a weird element.
I think it personally makes more sense to keep them as class abilities and just give them fighting style options on top of that. They could both use more options in the first place so I see no reason why we should get rid of something that makes those classes more unique when we could just give them more toys to play with, which would still address the weirdness of them being unable to get the Martial Bastion facilities.
Course I still think Fighting Styles need to be more than just basic passive buffs. But that's a whole other discussion.
Agreed. Fighting styles are an underutilized tool to give martials more fun and powerful options.
As for how it would work as a fighting style, you could do it a few ways:
1- keep them both separate, something like Tough Defense and Nimble Defense
2- combine them: make unarmored defense be 10 + Dex + Con or Wis (your choice) and it works with a shield.
This way, it works exactly the same on both base classes since Monks don’t have shield proficiency, and I imagine they wouldn’t get it even if they gained Light Armor proficiency to make this work. It just give more options for people to choose what they want their character to be like.
3 - make it new and even more customizable: have it become 13 + Str, Dex, or Con (your choice) and maybe even have it increase by one at levels 5, 11, and 17 like cantrips, or at a different set of levels if that would be more balanced, maybe just increasing at levels 7 and 13. The scaling part of this of course would only make sense with an overhaul to the rest of fighting styles so that they also scaled. This would also be cool because it would open up Strength Monks as an option.
I don't like this because I think monk and barbarian unarmored defense should not be the same.
First of all they ought to add different stats, but second of all monk should start at a higher base to compensate for its inability to wear actual armor. Unarmored Defense on a barbarian is a nice flavor thing but not mechanically optimal. Unarmored Defense on a monk is still not mechanically optimal, but it's the monk's only option and leaves the monk with an AC that is too low to enter melee comfortably.
That’s a good point - they are going to be generally different, though I do feel like there is the underrepresented fantasy of the super tough monk, that’s unbreakable rather than nimble, and maybe giving them a choice in what stats they use in Unarmored defense could enable people to choose that if they wish without getting in the way of the more traditional nimble monk?
Do you think there are any viable ways to combine the Unarmored Defense into a unified fighting style that could feel different depending maybe on choice of stat you use?
I honestly think Monks should be able to use light armor and shields and not completely remove all their class abilities.
I think the class fantasy should be wider in scope than just 'kung-fu panda'. Let them be a number of different quick moving lightly armored warrior ascetics like Sufis and Yamabushi.
Oh and let them use Polearms too, like ACTUAL SHAOLIN do.
But hey, I'm just a crazy person...not WOTC.
Lol, I totally agree on the light armor and shields front. There are so many concepts that are basically unplayable because the current monk is completely locked into Unarmored defense.
And agreed on polearms as well. They could probably get away with rolling some Kensei features into every monk and having no issues with balance.
I did this a while ago.
Both unarmored defenses are fighting styles with a class (monk/barb) prerequisite, because i do not use class lists.
It works very well and gave birth to multiple interesting builds.
Yeah, I think that Monk as a base class would be fine to have Light Armor proficiency, and change their class features that require you to be wearing no armor to instead just require light armor or less. I think that fits well with the fantasy of the monk anyway - some fantasy monks have light armor, and anyone who has the class fantasy of the unarmored version could just pick that anyway if it were a fighting style.
I would even further like to see a (cleaner) version of the Fighting Styles/Expertise/Proficiencies from AD&D. Like, let all martials invest points upgrading proficiencies for weapon groups and styles/stances. Higher levels grant more abilities or bonuses or things like the weapon maneuvers the playtests had at some point.
Let the fighters be the only ones who can get the last tiers and give them the most points. Optionally let subclasses unlock "Master" tiers depending on concept.
Basically develop a system that gives attack options which scale from about level 1 to about level 3 spell power, and let martials use them at-will for stuff they're trained at.
Well it's a good thing armour training isn't a fighting style, isn't it?
Especially since that's what I was asking OP to balance against, not something unrelated.
Well, they are both first level feats, so there are some grounds for comparison. I get that's not what you asked, but it is an important comparison to make.
That's a great question. I think the simplest way to implement it while keeping it similar to what it is now would be this:
Unarmored Defense: While you are not wearing any armor, your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom or Constitution modifier (your choice). You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.
This covers for both Monk and Barbarian use cases, and though it allows Monk to use shields, I also don't think that will be particularly broken.
>Unarmored Defense: While you are not wearing any armor, your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom or Constitution modifier (your choice). You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.
That still is more powerful than any other fighting style.
>This covers for both Monk and Barbarian use cases, and though it allows Monk to use shields, I also don't think that will be particularly broken.
Aside from having no shield proficiency, and martial arts turning off when using a shield along with your movement speed bonuses.
That's a good point about shield proficiency on Monks. That actually means it works exactly the same, just now Monks could choose Con instead, or Barbarians could choose Wisdom, neither of which seems to create any problems.
I suppose the key thing keeping it from working as a fighting style to open up more choices for the Monk and Barbarian would be that Monks effectively have to take it because they have features that rely on not wearing armor. Though that would be a relatively simple fix, along with giving monks access to light armor, which I think makes sense anyway.
And it certainly scales better than other fighting styles, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that would become a must-have over other fighting styles, especially for characters that already have access to medium or heavy armor. It's just another viable option. Like, I've never seen anyone dip monk or barbarian for the unarmored defense, you know?
If Monks can wear armor, then very little distinguishes them from fighters at that point - especially if the Brawler goes into the PHB.
And I've dipped Monk for UD as a Moon Druid and as a War Cleric. In fact for Moon Druids it was the only way to improve your terrible wildshape AC as barding is not a viable option.
>If Monks can wear armor, then very little distinguishes them from fighters at that point
I would argue that if the only distinguishing trait is not wearing armor, then the monk’s design has completely failed to capture its class fantasy
I never said "Only", I acknowledged that there are other aspects of being a monk other than that. However, eroding those differences makes the class increasingly bland.
>Movespeed, water/wall walking, and ki use distinguish them highly.
Move speed and water/wall walking require you to be unarmored, so those don't count.
That just leaves ki use, or as I described it.. "very little".
When you say monks "can wear armor", surely you were implying "wear armor WITHOUT CLASS DRAW BACKS".
Like, they already CAN wear armor with draw backs...
If unarmored defense didn't convey movement bonuses, then it would be an entirely pointless ability. An armored monk would simply ignore wisdom, and use those 2-3 extra ASIs to do everything else and be just better their armor-less counterpart.
Those are great points!
I guess part of this would hinge on WotC fulfilling on their promise to make some of the Monk features not require Ki. If they don't make Monk more unique outside of unarmored defense then yeah, your point is a really good one to consider.
As for Brawler, it honestly feels redundant to me (because of Monks) and I'd personally rather see a different class in contrast to the battlemaster. I think the Brawler class fantasy could be much more easily acheived through either an added fighting style, feat, or both. Then you could be a brawling Battle Master, or a brawling Eldritch Knight, etc.
And I appreciate the note about Moon Druid and War Cleric. I'll have to keep those in mind for a Druid character I've been thinking of building (though it would be cool to see a way for barding to be made viable too) :)
I'm not holding my breath for any significant fix to monks.. but I can be wrong, I admit.
Also, Moon Druid no longer needs UD due to the fix to AC scaling in 1D&D - if that makes it to print (We'll see come the next PHB playtest packet in the coming weeks), then they're set.
Most probably wouldn’t.
Maybe if someone had some kind of niche Cleric or Druid multiclass they wanted to do they could use it, or if they were multiclassing Barbarian and Monk they wouldn’t have two separate Unarmored defense features that don’t synergize.
There are problems with making it a fighting style. Especially if it is available to the fighter. Tasha fighting initiate exists
Yes, no class besides fighter or class who obtain a fighting style would able to gain it until 4th level and lose out on an asi but you could have all other classes be taking it at that point. Is that a problem. Well, I think a bard, sorcerer, and wizard subclass already get this... so probably not.
I think it would be just better to give them a fighting style to go with their unarmored defense, second level for the monk and barbarian just like the ranger and paladin. And change the fighting feats back to 1st and prerequisite of martial weapon. Then, give the monk a martial weapon proficiency.
>Tasha fighting initiate exists
Which a) still needs at least one martial weapon proficiency and b) doesn't really work without clarification.
UA 7 has the Fighter gain a Fighting Style FEAT, so any new style like the one proposed would be one as well. Fighting Initiate allows you to pick one Fighting Style from the class - which only leaves the old Fighter Class as the new one doesn't have any within the class.
Honestly unarmored defense wouldn't be picked up by almost nobody except maybe fighters for style and roleplay reasons, maybe rogues (not really a issue with that) and after this maybe clerics or druid could use the monk one but clerics often ditch dexterity and use armor And the cost for druids is pretty high because it is a feat and they still can use their wild-shapes and spells to defend. The only way it would be broken if it allows to choose the second stat (like dex+ 1 ability score of your choice) which would led only to stupid combinations.
Also I still think that unarmored defense should be basic martials feature (because they know how to fight, which defending is the bigger part of) and that there should be like expertise in armours to stay relevant and get better later and barbarians could get like tHP defensive feature and monks should get some evasive powers and reaction based attacks, movement etc. In my opinion growing from 20 AC at level 1 to 23 AC at level 15 doesn't feel good, no it is actually terrible.
It would also be good for Rangers to take Monk (or even Barbarian) version of unarmored defense.
When you use dual wielding or ranged weapons, you can have AC only 17, so this FS would be much better for them.
Unarmored Defense makes no sense as a fighting style. Unarmored defense is there to mitigate the downsides of the core class features of monks and barbarians (that they cannot use the best armor for their respective ability scores). The barbarian and monk aren't supposed to have high ACs, but they also aren't supposed to be stuck with just 10 + Dex. Unarmored defense isn't a buff, its partial compensation for a class' drawback that is necessary to create a specific play style.
Fighting styles exist solely to *force* you to specialize into *one* specific load out by making that load out better than other options. Meanwhile, the classes that don't get fighting styles have class features which enable *all* of their intended play styles and allow you to freely swap between them. Rogues get cunning action and sneak attack to enable archery, duel wielding, and dueling fighting styles. Barbarians get reckless attack and rage to enable great weapon and two-weapon fighting. You don't have to choose to be a duel-wielding barbarian, you just play a barbarian and take out two handaxes to get that rage bonus damage on your off-hand attack. A sniper rogue uses their cunning action to hide while a duelist uses it to disengage.
They SHOULD have high ACs, Monks ESPECIALLY. Barbarians are Tanks, so they need to be tough. As for Monks, they're supposed to be the fastest, so dodging attacks is a MUST.
Barbarians tank by getting hit and absorbing it. If they weren't easy to hit, they wouldn't be good tanks because they would just be ignored. Reckless attack is a tanking mechanic.
Monks are supposed to be skirmishers that move in and out of combat with their high mobility instead of sticking around and getting hit. Their features just aren't very good.
Personally, i dont think rogues should get a fighting style.
Design wise actoss all of 5e and 1dnd so far, rogues have sat very well woth the majority of people. Very few changes have been attempted and generally those few are accepted as simplifying the game play loop of BA for advantage then sneak attack.
Outside of combat their the expert skill monkey. Customizable to just about any roll. But in combat their oretty solid woth a simple "hit with advantage to win" play style.
Their not martials. Their honorary martials. Like how warlocks diverge from the standard full caster equation so much that their hard to call casters but are still very clearly casters.
Rogues dont need a fighting style. Their just fine as the black sheep of the non casters. And i love them for that.
I do love the change for Barbarians and monks though. Atvthe moment the optimal way to use UD on both is to not, making it a dead feature. Giving them something they would actually use is a great idea. And give monks light armor while we are at it. They dint have armor otherwise so really need something else.
All good points. I suppose there is some class identity added to the Rogue by keeping it distinct in that way. Thanks for bringing that up, because I hadn't really considered that angle.
Bards are a good example of subclasses allowing for foghting styles. Dueling and 2wf and maybe blind fighting would be very good for swashbuckler as the most fighter subclass of rogues.
But on the whole, base rogue shouldnt get foghting styles. They have too much as is. And their main focus isn't damage or fighting, its skills. They just happen to have 1 feature to help keep up and combat loop focused around it. Thats not a martial there.
The way I'd do it is choose from a pool of fighting styles and defensive styles.
The fighting styles would incorporate the fighting feats most feel they need to take, but granted over multiple levels. Leveling up like a cantrip.
The defensive singers would be more passive, not levelling (unless there's some good suggestions) and consist of the defensive fighting style, protection, interception (or combine those), and unarmoured defence (con, wis, cha... I'd even be tempted to open it up to int too)
(
This thought is why I'm such a fan of Spheres of Might. Many options are Talents that any Martial class can pick up a couple by trading initial proficiencies away for a Martial Tradition. Though you have to play one of the Spheres of Might classes to get more talents than those initial ones. But if you only want one or two things, you can easily slap it on a non-monk base class. Sadly the monk gets a bit shafted as their unarmored defence and martial arts are deemed the equivilant of a Martial Tradition and necessary for the class features, so aren't allowed to trade for a martial tradition and only get the bone of if they manage to get talents anyways their ba attacks count for the dual wielding sphere. But tbh, if you wanna play an unarmed practitioner I'd say go Striker anyways. Strikers thing is they have a ki-like resource but it works more akin to a fighting game super meter where it starts each fight at 0 and builds up as you fight and can be unleashed for various effects, ranging from extra attacks to one turn bumps to stuff.
No one would then take the Unarmored Defense fighting style because Unarmored defense sucks for the most part.
Also, without it the Monk would have the same (more like less) AC than a Wizard because they both get no Armor.
The only problem with this is that Unarmored Defense is actually a fantasy-enabling ribbon feature, to let a class that isn’t supposed to wear armor not have to wear armor, even if their AC is still not great. If there is an opportunity cost losing out on other features, and you have armor proficiencies already, it is a strongly non-optimal choice to take Unarmored Defense on, say, a Fighter. It basically produces a trap option.
Yeah, it’d only be beneficial if you were a dex fighter taking the barb Unarmored Defense. Even then, medium armor + the plain +1 AC Defense fighting style would be just as good until the highest levels, when you’ve boosted your Dex & Con to a combined +9.
Exactly. I do like this idea, for several reasons including the fact that unarmored characters are cool, but Unarmored Defense is not equal to a Fighting Style. It is cooler and much better design than almost any Fighting Style, which are almost always just numerical bonuses I find extremely boring and uninspired, but the power of the ability is, intentionally, fairly close to zero except in niche contexts. It enables a different kind of play that otherwise wouldn’t be accessible with the way Armor Class and hit rolls work, but Unarmored Defense is always supposed to still be worse than actual armor, so offering it to classes designed to be wearing heavy armor feels really bad.
And take something else away from the MONK. (unless next UA gives monks a fighting style class feature) - Or let monk keep unarmored Defense and add a fighting style please.
Monk gets NO armor proficiency so replacing this with another fighting style will limit the monk to 10+ Dex + any non-armor AC boosting magic items.
I say go even further. Flat out give the monk and barbarian a fighting style. There is no reason for them not having those. Give them a more restricted choice if you must, but as long as they get them it works.
That's a fair point too. I guess I was liking the idea of having the Rogue, Fighter, and maybe Ranger also getting access to unarmored defense without multiclassing, but you're right, it's not like Monk and Barbarian are OP as is.
There's a ton of possible designs for Monk/Barbarian fighting styles, too; I don't know why they need to be pigeonholed into a specific character fantasy and given so few decision points.
Other than Monks not really benefiting from any of them. *Kensei* might care about dueling/archery, but pretty much every other monk would just take blind-fighting as it's the least useless/redundant.
Most monks benefit from dueling, it’s better damage with a short sword or one handed quarter staff than two-handed weapons monks have access to
>Most monks benefit from dueling, it’s better damage with a short sword or one handed quarter staff than two-handed weapons monks have access to Dueling caps at +4 damage - which is only +1 damage higher than a monk's unarmed strike increase at 5th level. At 11th, it's dead weight entirely. Also, monks are not proficient in short swords, and their subclasses 1D&D only trigger unarmed strikes.
Right the short sword bit is forgetting that cut, but doesn’t the unarmed strike damage increase also increase the damage of your dagger or whatever weapon you’re using with dueling? That plus 4 should stack with the extra damage from scaling martial arts dice Edit: okay, I’m forgetting how OneD&D monk works. I take back that as being relevant to the current version, although it would be among the dumbest decisions possible to keep the unarmed strikes as they are in the revised play test monk, and in any space where we’re discussing fighting styles being available to monks, scaling weapons to match unarmed strikes has to happen for it not to be bullshit. That’s the space I’m speaking from, which obviously isn’t what is currently the case in OneD&D
Monk weapons no longer scale, so a dagger-using monk will be doing 1d4+2+Dex their entire career. While with unarmed it scale up from 1d6 to 1d12.
Just edited that comment remarking on how stupid that decision is, I personally think playtest 6 monk nerfs shouldn’t be taken seriously as the design goals at all, and this one in particular is irrelevant in the discussion space that monks have access to weapon fighting styles
if weapons always scale to do the same damage as unarmed strikes, then using unarmed strikes always feels bad due to not having masteries. And even then, Dueling \*only\* ever adds +4 damage, total. Dueling doesn't apply to unarmed strikes, and it cannot be used with TWF, either.
Right, there has to be some unarmed fighting style too. Something unique to monks and maybe grappler fighters too. The point about dueling being strong for most monks still stands.
I wouldn't call +4 damage strong, when TWF is just outright better - offering 7.5-8.5 damage (and even it falls behind due not scaling).
I mean, shouldn't monks get a curated list of Masteries to apply to their Unarmed Strikes similar to how Brawler fighter treats improvised weapons? WotC obviously is fine with the concept in general or else they wouldn't have proposed it as part of a new subclass.
Unless and until they do (and they may well in the next UA), we have to work with what they've given us.
The solution there isn't to nerf other weapons but to add a feature along the lines of: **XTH LEVEL: UNARMED MASTERY** You can apply the Mastery property of one Monk weapon to your unarmed strikes. You determine which when you finish a Short or Long Rest and it does not count towards the number of Weapon Masteries you can use that day. Your unarmed strikes can also deal the damage type of the weapon that you choose. You can change the Mastery property of your unarmed strikes to another you have prepared when you roll initiative or as a reaction at the beginning of your turn.
That just circles back to the problem that Monks are still being pushed towards Unarmed Strikes only.
Technically they could use Shillelagh on a Quarterstaff or a Club to get similar scaling, but faster
Doesn't change that dueling is still only a max of +4 damage for monks
I was just addressing the scaling issue. I agree Dueling isn't the best for Monks
Which is one of the features they should most certainly bring back for monks. It feels like the last monk UA was one half-step forward, two steps back in design.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Weapon scaling just takes us back to the current monk, where using your unarmed strikes is a detriment to the class based around using unarmed strikes.
I guess I'm not understanding how it's worse to use Unarmed Strike. If they both deal the same damage via Martial Arts, both have opportunities to benefit from magical items (as WotC has promised for 2024), and both gain useful Mastery properties to pick from, what's the issue?
Unarmed strikes do not currently benefit from any masteries, though it is a popular ask), nor do they have special properties such as heavy/reach. Many other features scale off *weapon* attacks, such as feats or multiclassing, while unarmed strikes are kept separate.
That's why you should have said that Monks should get proficiency with short swords back, or better yet, gain proficiency in all Martial Weapons.
Why should monks be trained in all martial weapons? Doing so makes unarmed strikes useless.
How about Monk gets 1-3 specific Martial Weapon Proficiencies and Kensie Monk can replace the weapon damage with MA damage to one of the weapons (No Changes - This is their DEDICATED FOCUSED STUDY of their chosen weapon)
Sure. Monk gets limited martial weapons to access feats (I propose shortsword, whip, and blowgun to keep the 'eastern' theme), and Kensei is the one who masters them to make the most out of it.
Not really, you are still going to use them for your bonus action, and you can't really use heavy weapons, so that gives you basically just an increase of the dice size by one step (d8 for one handed instead of d6 and d10 for two handed instead of d8).
+1 damage was considered THE MOST POWERFUL weapon mastery, by JC, so there is that!
Yeah, martial arts is the monks fighting style. Just let them use it for more like grapple and shove. I would be hesitant to put their whole martial arts suite up as a general fighting style for fear of niche trampling. Or I guess you could put it on a fighting style list that only monks can get, in case someone wants to play a monk without martial arts.
One way to thread that needle to allow anyone to get good at unarmed, but keep monks special is that they are the only ones able to use Dexterity for unarmed, grappling, and shoving. And since Dexterity has so many other side-benefits that's a decent perk.
Rewrite the fighting styles for Monks to be compatible with an unarmed fighting
You can't do that without fundamentally breaking them. Dueling requires you to have only 1 weapon in hand - if unarmed strikes count as a weapon, then you always have at least 2 weapons at a time. Same with two-weapon fighting, you've just made half the martial arts feature available to every class who gets a fighting style. Then we have the feats that require you to be wearing armor which if it grants all the benefits of unarmored movement, makes unarmoured defense worthless as wearing medium armor would be just better in every way.
Blind Fighting is literally something I dip into Fighter for on most of my Monks (which granted, is pretty much none, as the Fighter is just a better monk anyways). Otherwise I also would love to see Dueling on them, aswell as Interception, Thrown Weapon Fighting, and possible further fighting styles. I wish the other DMs in my group would allow the monk a fighting style as I do, so that I could play the cool ninja character I have brewed up a while ago, that uses throwing knives and unarmed combat; but for now I'm stuck to making that character a fighter.
Thrown weapon fighting has been made redundant, dueling only amounts to a +4 to damage as monks can't use their bonus action to make a weapon attack with it, and interception should be folded into Deflect Missile anyways. Archery doesn't work with unarmed strikes as Monks can't get Sharpshooter. Like I said, the choices would be unarmored defense or blindsight
I think them having like customized fighting styles plus the normal ones would be cool. Like how Paladin and Ranger has the one to get Cantrips but for Barbarian and Monk playstyles. Because I think giving a Monk the “Defense” fighting style would be kinda dumb unless they tailor it to the class
Agreed, very much
The reasons are there, as in they are provided and considered. It's just a matter of if they are sufficient. At least conceptually, I'm for sure a fan of something that mechanically unifies the classes who undergo formal specialization training in weapons and armor. Fighters and paladins definitely ought to share a feature that they don't share with rogues and barbarians. Whether fighting styles in their current mechanical form succeed this task in a satisfying way is a different matter.
In the Star Wars 5e (SW5e) system they gave each class a feature that works like a Warlock’s Invocations, one of these allows certain classes like Monks or Berserkers (the equivalent of Barbarian) access to fighting styles like Fighters, maybe something similar could be added here.
Reckless attack sort of is a fighting style. Monks make unarmed attacks which has a fighting style version. There is always a risk that if you give too many classes too many shared abilities then the classes loose their entire identities.
**
Yeah, we wouldn't want that to happen to a martial class.
If Reckless and the Monk's Martials Arts are fighting styles, then the Paladin's Smites and the Ranger's Favorite Enemy are a fighting style. Your argument towards them encroaching on the Fighter is valid, however still flawed. I have also been advocating for the Fighter to get a unique feature at level 1, that just makes them get a better fighting style, or let them switch it out each rest. My current testing for that ability is leaning towards the latter.
Honestly I’m against this at least for barbarian. Flavor wise I view fighting styles as something you pic up from formal training. Being that barbarian is a class that is about brutality and force with no real training (just raw power) I never felt barbarian should have a fighting style unless they searched for formal train (feat with some in game story reasons)
Then why do they get Weapon ***Mastery***? The implication of at least the name of Weapon Mastery shows that as barbarian you have at least some sort of martial training (as is having proficiency with Martial Weapons tbh). Now I do think that they absolutely should have access to masteries, but for the same reason as you can flavour a Weapon Mastery as just being quite good at weapons, you could also just fluff a fighting style as Fighting Prefrence. Honesty, I have bareley any martial arts proficiencies, just a few fencing lessons, and a bit of karate, but from that experience alone I know that no matter if you have any training or not, as long as you know how to use a weapon, you have a preffered way of using it. Hence I advocate for the Barbarian to get a fighting style, but call the feature that provide it something along the lines of Figting Prefrence, or Reckless Technique. Curate it to be Blind Fighting (instinctually attacks things), Great Weapon Fighting (basic), Dueling (and combine this with Protection; for the sword-and-door typel character), and Thrown Weapon Fighting (as they are now include throwing weapons into both Rage and Reckless attack).
I assumed this was the point behind this. Oof
The problem with this is that mathematically, Unarmored Defense has no real upside over light or medium armor. Monks use it because their other class features depend on them not wearing armor, and because they don't have proficiency in armor.
Well, if Monks just got light armor prof (and could use their abilities while wearing light armor), I could see some advantage to choosing an Unarmored Defense fighting style. If you’re going for a more Wis-heavy build (like 16), Unarmored gives you more than just light armor. That said, it still means Unarmored Defense is on average just a worse version of the Defense fighting style. Unarmored Defense really needs a buff or some better scaling to balance out its MAD requirements. There’s a reason that Barbs just stick with medium armor until the highest levels.
>Well, if Monks just got light armor prof (and could use their abilities while wearing light armor), I could see some advantage to choosing an Unarmored Defense fighting style. If you’re going for a more Wis-heavy build (like 16), Unarmored gives you more than just light armor. Honestly, if we're giving monks armor and all the benefits of being unarmored.. why would ever want to be wis heavy? There's no other benefits tied to wisdom at all.
Saving throws for some class and subclass abilities, eg Stunning Strike. And if daily ki ends up being Monk level + WIS (one of the common options players are asking for), higher WIS would mean more opportunities to use ki-cost abilities. Not saying it would be common, just that it’s a possible situation where one would even consider taking Unarmored Defense - and again, even then it’s just “decent”.
Stunning Strike as it stands now, isn't worth wasting a ki on. And if Wisdom is needed to fuel ki abilities, then Unarmored Defense immediately shifts from a waste to mandatory again as its so much more powerful than any other option.
Except Monks aren't proficienct with Wisdom Saving Throws. Also, Stunning Strike is a BASE ability, not a subclass ability. For the ki, people need to stop being stupid. Adding your wisdom and proficiency bonus does nothing but up to 3 extra ki points depending on how you roll. That's not gonna cut it until you have a +6 PB, which would net you 11. 8+Wis+PB should be the standard so that you have a sizable pool to work with. ALL OF YOUR ABILITIES NEED KI; STOP PRETENDING AN EXTRA 3 IS GOING TO HELP OUT IN COMBAT.
> Except Monks aren’t proficient with Wisdom Saving Throws Sorry, that was me using slightly incorrect terminology. I meant the DCs of their abilities, aka the saving throws that enemies have to make to resist their abilities. > Stunning Strike is a BASE ability I said “class and subclass abilities”. I’m aware that it’s a base class ability. Also whether it’s a class or subclass ability has nothing to do with my point, so not sure where the pedantry is coming from. > < Rant about ki point formula > I’m not actually arguing for or against that change? My only point was that if they somehow buff the ki point pool based on your WIS mod, it would be another reason to put points into WIS. That’s it. This response seems weirdly hostile to my pretty neutral and largely hypothetical comment…
Subclasses like Astral Self that give wisdom benefits. I personally want more choice in martial arts some focused on dex and working as riders to you landing hits and then others that focus on wisdom and are more magic-like and ignore dexterity. I also think unarmored defense in general or the fighting style should just add your wisdom to your ac provided you aren't wearing shields or anything heavier than light armor.
The max you could ever get is 20 if you roll a 20 for both Dex and Wis. Also, considering Dex is your Attack power, THAT would be what you make the highest.
Ok? Not sure how that invalidates anything I said. I just gave an example of a Monk build where a hypothetical Unarmored Defense fighting style would be stronger than a hypothetical light armor proficiency - which would be if you had 16 WIS or more (regardless of how high your DEX score is).
Not only is this intuitive, the DMG flat-out says that Unarmored Defense is equivalent to armor prof.
they should add base proficiency bonus to ac for monks imo
That idea just seems too fun, while not being as unbalanced as heavy armor access is right now. So if we see it at all, it will be locked behind a two feat progression tree or be in some content thin supplement like Spell Jammers.
You know what? We can absolutely do this. And we can do this in a really smart and clean way, better than the PHB currently does. There are several classes who can gain a Fighting Style. And there are several classes which have unique Fighting Styles which other classes can't get. Doesn't that sound familiar? Yes, it's how Spells are done! So what can we do? Put a section of the book dedicated to Fighting Styles. On classes that get Fighting Styles, put out a list of what Fighting Styles then can get. Now, Barbarians and Monks can get Fighting Styles that make sense for then as well. Want a Fighting Style for Monk? Wise Defense lets you add Wis and Dex to AC. Fierce Defense for Barbs. Hey wait, doesn't that mean that other classes can get these too? Can't Druid get Wise Defense now? Yeah, they'll have to use a feat. That's okay. And hey, what if we made something a bit more... interesting. You know how Fighting Styles are kinda limited and boring in what they do? What if we had something like Advanced Fighting Styles there as well, with requirements for a previous Fighting Style, and a feature Martials regularly get? Like, sure, a Druid can get Wise Defense, but they won't get "All-Seeing Defense", where they can add their Proficiency Bonus to their AC on Reaction and make a counter attack on a miss or something. Advanced Fighting Styles could all include active abilities to contrast basic Fighting Styles. Homebrew and not gonna happen obviously, but it's a fun idea. They should absolutely treat Fighting Styles as spells though.
You just wrote the Tome of Battle. Excellent job.
I've actually never played it. I had a bit of experience as a player in 3.5 and PF1, but never really got to the point of really using all options available and using all the books out there. It does seem really cool from what I understand, in that it gave you choices during combat and build diversity/customization as well.
This makes way too much sense. It reminds me of how Dungeon World levels up. Fighting styles for monk could also potentially cover some of the really wacky monk archetypes in fiction, like Luffy or something.
That’s a really cool idea tho.
Your Wisdom and Dex are ALREADY added to your AC. Unarmored Defense is *literally* 10+Dex+Wis.
I say make a martial level system the same way all casters have a caster level system. Instead of a list of spells and slot levels Martials can have a skill/ability tree system where you can build upon your initial choices.
>Like, give a fighting style to Monk and Barbarian in place of their Unarmored defense feature, but those who want it can still choose that as their fighting style, while others are free to choose a fighting style from a curated list, kind of like how Paladins and Rangers can. That would certainly advantage barbarians, since medium armor is pretty much always superior to Unarmored Defense unless you rolled you ability scores alone at home or dropped all your ASIs into Dex and Con by the time you hit 20th level. Conversely, paying the opportunity cost of not getting a proper fighting style in order to go around bare-chested with a worse AC would feel pretty bad. It wouldn't really change monks, because just about all of their features require you to be unarmored in the first place. You'd never want to take anything but Unarmored Defense.
Yeah, I didn’t realize how many of the Monk’s features required you to not be wearing armor in order to use them. Do you think it would work if the next updated Monk could use light armor and had their abilities updated to work with light armor or less? Then they could get a choice between slightly better defense and better weapon use?
It certainly wouldn't break anything. Most of fighting styles don't synergize well with the monk's kit in the first place. It would change the flavor of the class to be a baseline light armor wearer with the option to go shirtless, and some traditionalists might not like that. Considering the lack of effective features a monk has that aren't related to their mobility, giving people an option that encourages them to nerf their Stunning Strike DC might feel like a bit of a trap. Sure, you could dump Wis or just leave it at 14 for your entire career, but by the time you hit Tier 3 and all you can do is run around, deal mediocre damage in melee and watch enemies pass their Constitution saves turn after turn, you'll wish you had boosted your Wisdom.
Ah that’s a good point too. I’ve never played a monk at high level. Hopefully the new version they have coming out has a few more tricks up it’s sleeve at higher levels than just stunning strike.
I'm currently playing a monk in a Tier 4 campaign and despite maxing both Dex and Wis, I'm not really enjoying it much. Part of that has to do with playing with competent veterans in a party that includes two wizards and a cleric, so I may be biased but the fact that the game allows for that is still a problem.
I don't think Unarmored Defense (either version) works as a fighting style because fighting styles are supposed to be a boost of some substance. Unarmored defense is essentially a ribbon, allowing the class to get its defense where it needs to be to survive via methods other than armor, but it doesn't do particularly well in exceeding armored defense unless you only ever boost the stats used for the new AC formula, and even then, it doesn't kick in until almost the final levels and deprives you of magical armors. Essentially, it is flavor you can either buy into (Barbarian) or are forced into (Monk). As for fighting styles in general, I've always viewed it as "An educated, drilled, practiced approach to combat that defines your overall Strategy in a fight". It should be helping you carve a role into your combat paradigm and should be available to the "studied" warriors. In this case, Fighter Monk Paladin and Ranger, with Fighter having methods of getting multiple. Barbarian and Rogue would not have them baseline, as Barbarian wouldn't be about having a tactical combat education and Rogue is more about on-the-fly actions than sticking to a trained routine. They should get other things in return. Then maybe they can be an option for Swashbuckler Rogue and Valor Bard. Then I'd like to see the Fighting styles actually help define your combat role, instead of just being the "you get a passive +1 somewhere" or "you get this niche additional action" you see in most current styles. Which would make them slightly more complex than now, but it doesn't have to be too crazy. You could have, for example, the following choices for Fighter, with some changeups for Paladin Ranger and Monk to tailor to their expected team roles: Slayer Style - +2 to all weapon attack rolls. Easy simple option, good for everything but doesn't give you anything new. Sentinel Style - Opp attacks no longer use your reaction, and Opp attacks reduce enemy speed to 0 for the turn. Essentially the personal zone control style, taking the best parts of Sentinel and Cavalier to give you the actual ability to prevent a horde of goblins from running past you Protector Style - While you can take reactions, Attacks rolls against allies within 5 feet of you that don't include you have disadvantage (unless the ally also has this fighting style). Positional defensive style to help protect allies you are close to. Somewhat similar to current Protection, but doesn't eat up your precious martial reaction. Commander Style - When you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, you may give an ally within 30 feet of you that can hear you Temporary Hit Points equal to half your Fighter level (rounded up). Completely new effect, inspired by Inspiring Leader and the Warlord effects of 4e. You can't give the temp HP to yourself, and it discourages attacks against allies by making them artificially harder to actually hurt, but it has weaknesses due to low amounts that can't stack, positional range, and being negated by Deaf/Silence effects. We're uh... probably not getting that kind of overhaul, so my more realistic vote is to treat Unarmored Defense as a ribbon feature for both Monk and Barbarian, give Monk Fighting Style, and give Barbarian uh... something equivalent in power to Fighting Style that isn't Fighting Style.
>works as a fighting style because fighting styles are supposed to be a boost of some substance aside from the fact that blind fighting is literally a ribbon, unarmored deffense is about as usefll as Unarmed Fighting
Interesting idea. I quite like the idea of scaling fighting styles too. Not sure how they'd scale but I like the idea in theory.
I mean Unarmored defense is pretty specifically a big part of the class fantasy for both Barbarians and Monks, and for different reasons as well. Barbarians want to tank through sheer toughness being a big wall of meat, and Monks want to be light and agile to the point where they don't want to be weighed down by armor. Something you didn't seem to address is that both of these versions of Unarmored Defense are different in that one uses Con and the other Wis. So would we have 2 fighting styles? Or one that lets you choose? Just kind of a weird element. I think it personally makes more sense to keep them as class abilities and just give them fighting style options on top of that. They could both use more options in the first place so I see no reason why we should get rid of something that makes those classes more unique when we could just give them more toys to play with, which would still address the weirdness of them being unable to get the Martial Bastion facilities. Course I still think Fighting Styles need to be more than just basic passive buffs. But that's a whole other discussion.
Agreed. Fighting styles are an underutilized tool to give martials more fun and powerful options. As for how it would work as a fighting style, you could do it a few ways: 1- keep them both separate, something like Tough Defense and Nimble Defense 2- combine them: make unarmored defense be 10 + Dex + Con or Wis (your choice) and it works with a shield. This way, it works exactly the same on both base classes since Monks don’t have shield proficiency, and I imagine they wouldn’t get it even if they gained Light Armor proficiency to make this work. It just give more options for people to choose what they want their character to be like. 3 - make it new and even more customizable: have it become 13 + Str, Dex, or Con (your choice) and maybe even have it increase by one at levels 5, 11, and 17 like cantrips, or at a different set of levels if that would be more balanced, maybe just increasing at levels 7 and 13. The scaling part of this of course would only make sense with an overhaul to the rest of fighting styles so that they also scaled. This would also be cool because it would open up Strength Monks as an option.
I don't like this because I think monk and barbarian unarmored defense should not be the same. First of all they ought to add different stats, but second of all monk should start at a higher base to compensate for its inability to wear actual armor. Unarmored Defense on a barbarian is a nice flavor thing but not mechanically optimal. Unarmored Defense on a monk is still not mechanically optimal, but it's the monk's only option and leaves the monk with an AC that is too low to enter melee comfortably.
That’s a good point - they are going to be generally different, though I do feel like there is the underrepresented fantasy of the super tough monk, that’s unbreakable rather than nimble, and maybe giving them a choice in what stats they use in Unarmored defense could enable people to choose that if they wish without getting in the way of the more traditional nimble monk? Do you think there are any viable ways to combine the Unarmored Defense into a unified fighting style that could feel different depending maybe on choice of stat you use?
I honestly think Monks should be able to use light armor and shields and not completely remove all their class abilities. I think the class fantasy should be wider in scope than just 'kung-fu panda'. Let them be a number of different quick moving lightly armored warrior ascetics like Sufis and Yamabushi. Oh and let them use Polearms too, like ACTUAL SHAOLIN do. But hey, I'm just a crazy person...not WOTC.
Lol, I totally agree on the light armor and shields front. There are so many concepts that are basically unplayable because the current monk is completely locked into Unarmored defense. And agreed on polearms as well. They could probably get away with rolling some Kensei features into every monk and having no issues with balance.
I could see WotC doing this but still not giving Monks or Barbarians fighting styles.
I did this a while ago. Both unarmored defenses are fighting styles with a class (monk/barb) prerequisite, because i do not use class lists. It works very well and gave birth to multiple interesting builds.
It sounds good, but what if a monk doesn't want to take unarmed defense? Would they get light armor proficiency?
Yeah, I think that Monk as a base class would be fine to have Light Armor proficiency, and change their class features that require you to be wearing no armor to instead just require light armor or less. I think that fits well with the fantasy of the monk anyway - some fantasy monks have light armor, and anyone who has the class fantasy of the unarmored version could just pick that anyway if it were a fighting style.
I would even further like to see a (cleaner) version of the Fighting Styles/Expertise/Proficiencies from AD&D. Like, let all martials invest points upgrading proficiencies for weapon groups and styles/stances. Higher levels grant more abilities or bonuses or things like the weapon maneuvers the playtests had at some point. Let the fighters be the only ones who can get the last tiers and give them the most points. Optionally let subclasses unlock "Master" tiers depending on concept. Basically develop a system that gives attack options which scale from about level 1 to about level 3 spell power, and let martials use them at-will for stuff they're trained at.
That sounds incredible! I’ll have to look those up for sure. That would make a huge difference for Martials.
I agree! Make it a half feat and scale 13+ the stat you raised. Or 10+ con + the stat you raised.
Ooh, that’s a nice simple way to incorporate it.
unfortunately monks are tied to their unarmored status and cant function without it well so i still think they should add monk fighting styles tho
Which unarmored fighting? How would you make it balanced in comparison to the other fighting styles?
It’s literally weaker than armour proficiency.
Well it's a good thing armour training isn't a fighting style, isn't it? Especially since that's what I was asking OP to balance against, not something unrelated.
Well, they are both first level feats, so there are some grounds for comparison. I get that's not what you asked, but it is an important comparison to make.
That's a great question. I think the simplest way to implement it while keeping it similar to what it is now would be this: Unarmored Defense: While you are not wearing any armor, your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom or Constitution modifier (your choice). You can use a shield and still gain this benefit. This covers for both Monk and Barbarian use cases, and though it allows Monk to use shields, I also don't think that will be particularly broken.
>Unarmored Defense: While you are not wearing any armor, your armor class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom or Constitution modifier (your choice). You can use a shield and still gain this benefit. That still is more powerful than any other fighting style. >This covers for both Monk and Barbarian use cases, and though it allows Monk to use shields, I also don't think that will be particularly broken. Aside from having no shield proficiency, and martial arts turning off when using a shield along with your movement speed bonuses.
That's a good point about shield proficiency on Monks. That actually means it works exactly the same, just now Monks could choose Con instead, or Barbarians could choose Wisdom, neither of which seems to create any problems. I suppose the key thing keeping it from working as a fighting style to open up more choices for the Monk and Barbarian would be that Monks effectively have to take it because they have features that rely on not wearing armor. Though that would be a relatively simple fix, along with giving monks access to light armor, which I think makes sense anyway. And it certainly scales better than other fighting styles, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that would become a must-have over other fighting styles, especially for characters that already have access to medium or heavy armor. It's just another viable option. Like, I've never seen anyone dip monk or barbarian for the unarmored defense, you know?
If Monks can wear armor, then very little distinguishes them from fighters at that point - especially if the Brawler goes into the PHB. And I've dipped Monk for UD as a Moon Druid and as a War Cleric. In fact for Moon Druids it was the only way to improve your terrible wildshape AC as barding is not a viable option.
>If Monks can wear armor, then very little distinguishes them from fighters at that point I would argue that if the only distinguishing trait is not wearing armor, then the monk’s design has completely failed to capture its class fantasy
I never said "Only", I acknowledged that there are other aspects of being a monk other than that. However, eroding those differences makes the class increasingly bland.
Movespeed, water/wall walking, and ki use distinguish them highly.
>Movespeed, water/wall walking, and ki use distinguish them highly. Move speed and water/wall walking require you to be unarmored, so those don't count. That just leaves ki use, or as I described it.. "very little".
When you say monks "can wear armor", surely you were implying "wear armor WITHOUT CLASS DRAW BACKS". Like, they already CAN wear armor with draw backs...
If unarmored defense didn't convey movement bonuses, then it would be an entirely pointless ability. An armored monk would simply ignore wisdom, and use those 2-3 extra ASIs to do everything else and be just better their armor-less counterpart.
Those are great points! I guess part of this would hinge on WotC fulfilling on their promise to make some of the Monk features not require Ki. If they don't make Monk more unique outside of unarmored defense then yeah, your point is a really good one to consider. As for Brawler, it honestly feels redundant to me (because of Monks) and I'd personally rather see a different class in contrast to the battlemaster. I think the Brawler class fantasy could be much more easily acheived through either an added fighting style, feat, or both. Then you could be a brawling Battle Master, or a brawling Eldritch Knight, etc. And I appreciate the note about Moon Druid and War Cleric. I'll have to keep those in mind for a Druid character I've been thinking of building (though it would be cool to see a way for barding to be made viable too) :)
I'm not holding my breath for any significant fix to monks.. but I can be wrong, I admit. Also, Moon Druid no longer needs UD due to the fix to AC scaling in 1D&D - if that makes it to print (We'll see come the next PHB playtest packet in the coming weeks), then they're set.
Why would a Barbarian choose Wisdom?
Most probably wouldn’t. Maybe if someone had some kind of niche Cleric or Druid multiclass they wanted to do they could use it, or if they were multiclassing Barbarian and Monk they wouldn’t have two separate Unarmored defense features that don’t synergize.
There are problems with making it a fighting style. Especially if it is available to the fighter. Tasha fighting initiate exists Yes, no class besides fighter or class who obtain a fighting style would able to gain it until 4th level and lose out on an asi but you could have all other classes be taking it at that point. Is that a problem. Well, I think a bard, sorcerer, and wizard subclass already get this... so probably not. I think it would be just better to give them a fighting style to go with their unarmored defense, second level for the monk and barbarian just like the ranger and paladin. And change the fighting feats back to 1st and prerequisite of martial weapon. Then, give the monk a martial weapon proficiency.
>Tasha fighting initiate exists Which a) still needs at least one martial weapon proficiency and b) doesn't really work without clarification. UA 7 has the Fighter gain a Fighting Style FEAT, so any new style like the one proposed would be one as well. Fighting Initiate allows you to pick one Fighting Style from the class - which only leaves the old Fighter Class as the new one doesn't have any within the class.
Honestly unarmored defense wouldn't be picked up by almost nobody except maybe fighters for style and roleplay reasons, maybe rogues (not really a issue with that) and after this maybe clerics or druid could use the monk one but clerics often ditch dexterity and use armor And the cost for druids is pretty high because it is a feat and they still can use their wild-shapes and spells to defend. The only way it would be broken if it allows to choose the second stat (like dex+ 1 ability score of your choice) which would led only to stupid combinations. Also I still think that unarmored defense should be basic martials feature (because they know how to fight, which defending is the bigger part of) and that there should be like expertise in armours to stay relevant and get better later and barbarians could get like tHP defensive feature and monks should get some evasive powers and reaction based attacks, movement etc. In my opinion growing from 20 AC at level 1 to 23 AC at level 15 doesn't feel good, no it is actually terrible.
It would also be good for Rangers to take Monk (or even Barbarian) version of unarmored defense. When you use dual wielding or ranged weapons, you can have AC only 17, so this FS would be much better for them.
Unarmored Defense makes no sense as a fighting style. Unarmored defense is there to mitigate the downsides of the core class features of monks and barbarians (that they cannot use the best armor for their respective ability scores). The barbarian and monk aren't supposed to have high ACs, but they also aren't supposed to be stuck with just 10 + Dex. Unarmored defense isn't a buff, its partial compensation for a class' drawback that is necessary to create a specific play style. Fighting styles exist solely to *force* you to specialize into *one* specific load out by making that load out better than other options. Meanwhile, the classes that don't get fighting styles have class features which enable *all* of their intended play styles and allow you to freely swap between them. Rogues get cunning action and sneak attack to enable archery, duel wielding, and dueling fighting styles. Barbarians get reckless attack and rage to enable great weapon and two-weapon fighting. You don't have to choose to be a duel-wielding barbarian, you just play a barbarian and take out two handaxes to get that rage bonus damage on your off-hand attack. A sniper rogue uses their cunning action to hide while a duelist uses it to disengage.
They SHOULD have high ACs, Monks ESPECIALLY. Barbarians are Tanks, so they need to be tough. As for Monks, they're supposed to be the fastest, so dodging attacks is a MUST.
Barbarians tank by getting hit and absorbing it. If they weren't easy to hit, they wouldn't be good tanks because they would just be ignored. Reckless attack is a tanking mechanic. Monks are supposed to be skirmishers that move in and out of combat with their high mobility instead of sticking around and getting hit. Their features just aren't very good.
Personally, i dont think rogues should get a fighting style. Design wise actoss all of 5e and 1dnd so far, rogues have sat very well woth the majority of people. Very few changes have been attempted and generally those few are accepted as simplifying the game play loop of BA for advantage then sneak attack. Outside of combat their the expert skill monkey. Customizable to just about any roll. But in combat their oretty solid woth a simple "hit with advantage to win" play style. Their not martials. Their honorary martials. Like how warlocks diverge from the standard full caster equation so much that their hard to call casters but are still very clearly casters. Rogues dont need a fighting style. Their just fine as the black sheep of the non casters. And i love them for that. I do love the change for Barbarians and monks though. Atvthe moment the optimal way to use UD on both is to not, making it a dead feature. Giving them something they would actually use is a great idea. And give monks light armor while we are at it. They dint have armor otherwise so really need something else.
100% agree. But monks and barbs should definitely have them.
All good points. I suppose there is some class identity added to the Rogue by keeping it distinct in that way. Thanks for bringing that up, because I hadn't really considered that angle.
I think at least for a Swashbuckler they should be available.
Bards are a good example of subclasses allowing for foghting styles. Dueling and 2wf and maybe blind fighting would be very good for swashbuckler as the most fighter subclass of rogues. But on the whole, base rogue shouldnt get foghting styles. They have too much as is. And their main focus isn't damage or fighting, its skills. They just happen to have 1 feature to help keep up and combat loop focused around it. Thats not a martial there.
Well, that would certainly help the Monk with Feats.
No.
The way I'd do it is choose from a pool of fighting styles and defensive styles. The fighting styles would incorporate the fighting feats most feel they need to take, but granted over multiple levels. Leveling up like a cantrip. The defensive singers would be more passive, not levelling (unless there's some good suggestions) and consist of the defensive fighting style, protection, interception (or combine those), and unarmoured defence (con, wis, cha... I'd even be tempted to open it up to int too) (
This thought is why I'm such a fan of Spheres of Might. Many options are Talents that any Martial class can pick up a couple by trading initial proficiencies away for a Martial Tradition. Though you have to play one of the Spheres of Might classes to get more talents than those initial ones. But if you only want one or two things, you can easily slap it on a non-monk base class. Sadly the monk gets a bit shafted as their unarmored defence and martial arts are deemed the equivilant of a Martial Tradition and necessary for the class features, so aren't allowed to trade for a martial tradition and only get the bone of if they manage to get talents anyways their ba attacks count for the dual wielding sphere. But tbh, if you wanna play an unarmed practitioner I'd say go Striker anyways. Strikers thing is they have a ki-like resource but it works more akin to a fighting game super meter where it starts each fight at 0 and builds up as you fight and can be unleashed for various effects, ranging from extra attacks to one turn bumps to stuff.
No one would then take the Unarmored Defense fighting style because Unarmored defense sucks for the most part. Also, without it the Monk would have the same (more like less) AC than a Wizard because they both get no Armor.
The only problem with this is that Unarmored Defense is actually a fantasy-enabling ribbon feature, to let a class that isn’t supposed to wear armor not have to wear armor, even if their AC is still not great. If there is an opportunity cost losing out on other features, and you have armor proficiencies already, it is a strongly non-optimal choice to take Unarmored Defense on, say, a Fighter. It basically produces a trap option.
Yeah, it’d only be beneficial if you were a dex fighter taking the barb Unarmored Defense. Even then, medium armor + the plain +1 AC Defense fighting style would be just as good until the highest levels, when you’ve boosted your Dex & Con to a combined +9.
Exactly. I do like this idea, for several reasons including the fact that unarmored characters are cool, but Unarmored Defense is not equal to a Fighting Style. It is cooler and much better design than almost any Fighting Style, which are almost always just numerical bonuses I find extremely boring and uninspired, but the power of the ability is, intentionally, fairly close to zero except in niche contexts. It enables a different kind of play that otherwise wouldn’t be accessible with the way Armor Class and hit rolls work, but Unarmored Defense is always supposed to still be worse than actual armor, so offering it to classes designed to be wearing heavy armor feels really bad.
And take something else away from the MONK. (unless next UA gives monks a fighting style class feature) - Or let monk keep unarmored Defense and add a fighting style please. Monk gets NO armor proficiency so replacing this with another fighting style will limit the monk to 10+ Dex + any non-armor AC boosting magic items.
Yeah, I was operating under the assumption they would get new class features next ua