I think what people mean by "Bruce Lee" is more like your standard kung fu action movie where one martial artist wades into a crowd and starts beating a nonstop wave of minions left and right by tossing them around and into each other and so on.

That or a great 1 on 1 fighter I guess.

Quote from: Warthur;859076Let's hear a little from the man himself, huh?

Call me crazy, but I don't see Bruce Lee's style (or other martial arts style) as being particularly static - in fact, I'd say mobility is key to it. I don't see that it's a problem that a class is more useful in combat by staying mobile, any more than it's a problem for wizards to try to stay out of melee or a problem for fighters to make human shields of themselves. My 5E thief relies a lot on mobility and he does just fine in combat.

In real life, you are correct about mobility. In Aikido, part of your Black Belt test is handling 5 attackers at once. The secret is to become the attacker, move to meet one of them, and pick them off one at a time. That way, you're only dealing with one of them at a time. That's the biggest hurdle people face in that test, is moving into the attacker(s). That's actually one of the basics of Aikido--move into the attack.

Quote from: Tod13;859204In real life, you are correct about mobility. In Aikido, part of your Black Belt test is handling 5 attackers at once. The secret is to become the attacker, move to meet one of them, and pick them off one at a time. That way, you're only dealing with one of them at a time. That's the biggest hurdle people face in that test, is moving into the attacker(s). That's actually one of the basics of Aikido--move into the attack.

In 5 vs 1 scenario using any style if you don't go on the offensive then you are pretty much done.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859176IIRC Monk's first Ki abilities (2nd lvl) are:
1) bonus act and 1 ki to Dodge.
2) bonus act and 1 ki to flurry of blows.
3) bonus act and 1 ki to Dash and double long jump +DEX.

Quite right.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859176Given that Martial Arts from lvl 1 already grants 1 unarmed strike after a monk weapon (or unarmed) strike that's already two strikes and a getaway option. Monk Weapon (1d6+DEX) plus Unarmed (1d4+DEX) plus bonus act and +1 ki for Dodge. That's really good.

The extra strike from the basic Martial Arts feature also requires a bonus action, so you have to choose between it and any of the ki point options.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859176From my experience I routinely rate Dodge better than Disengage because it lasts until the start of your next turn. Only problem is it is limited by the number of ki points. But I am ok with that as bonus act Dodge or Flurry is strong.

I agree.  Dodge as a bonus action is great.  What's more, if you are deprived mobility due to whatever circumstance (e.g. the path is blocked by opponents) then this feature lets the monk be harder to hit in place while still attacking.  For the Bruce Lee simulationist folks this would seem like a plus. Ironic, no?

For anyone who's played 5e and has felt the sting of disadvantage, and yet doesn't see the value in Patient Defense (the proper name for the Monk bonus Dodge feature), I dunno.  At that point I start to wonder not if they've actually played a Monk, rather if they've played the game at all.  (n.b. hyperbole)

Quote from: Opaopajr;859176If you really want to make a low level Martial Arts monk sing in melee I would take the Mobility feat. That "first target you attempt to attack cannot OA you this turn" is solid. Hit doesn't even have to land, just attempt to hit.

I haven't see this is in play, but I like the cut of your jib.

As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die.  And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.

Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859442As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die.  And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.

Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.

It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with. Trying to GM it all was a bit of a learning curve, especially things like Sorcerer Metamagic or other technical details. Thanks for your reply here; we all dance with the devil of pride.

I actually can see the argument about d10 or subsuming the class mostly into the Fighter class as an archetype. But I think the big issue would be those who want the mystical Monk, like shadow or elements archetype. I really don't know if it could be all subsumed into the Fighter class.

But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859452It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with. Trying to GM it all was a bit of a learning curve, especially things like Sorcerer Metamagic or other technical details. Thanks for your reply here; we all dance with the devil of pride.

I actually can see the argument about d10 or subsuming the class mostly into the Fighter class as an archetype. But I think the big issue would be those who want the mystical Monk, like shadow or elements archetype. I really don't know if it could be all subsumed into the Fighter class.

But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.

If I ever run a OA style game, I will make Martial Arts as a Fighting Style and keep the Monk for the more esoteric 'styles' (Cuz the Elemental one makes for a great Avatar: The Last Airbender ripoff.)

I'm also considering turning the 'Armoured Defense' stuff that both the Barbarian and Monk have, as a Feat, but you'd get to pic any non-Dex stat to choose from for your AC bonus.  Maybe give a +1 to that particular stat as well, as long as it doesn't break 20.

Which goes back to this threads title, instead of making a whole new class, you can make tweaks, using the stuff that's already there or from a previous edition and boom, you more or less got what you may need.

It's an interesting exercise on class and archetype editing.

I mean, maybe there's a way to consolidate Ki pool and Battlemaster HD pool. It does mean the Monk 2nd lvl features will have to be consolidated elsewhere or otherwise dropped. But IIRC Battlemaster starts with a number of dice that seems close to the Monk's 3rd lvl Ki pool.

I don't think it should be too hard to cobble together a consolidation among us here if we tried.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859442As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die.  And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.

Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.

I'd be hard-pressed to argue against the d10 thing. I mean, it's been working fine for us with the d8, but I sure wouldn't see a d10 as egregious.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859452It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with.

So true.

I sort of like starting a new game/edition with some ignorance about the classes. I just started playing in a 3rd 5e campaign (my time is now a bit over-committed, but I'm not going to look a game-gift-horse in the mouth, or something), and decided to try out a bard.  Haven't looked at it beyond the 3rd level college stuff. I don't worry about "trap" classes or builds, because I rarely play a game where that sort of thing is an issue, and the discovery of the class through play rather than spreadsheet is so much fun.  Ignorance can make for  bliss in some cases.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859452But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.

This something of a tangent, but I look at the Wizard and wonder how they ended up letting them be generalists with specialists benefits, which seems to encroach so much on the territory of the other casters.  When a 2nd level evocation wizard gets something that is arguably better (opinions vary, of course) than the spell point fueled careful spell of the Sorcerer,  and when the wizard gets spell back on one short rest as well, yadda yadda.   It doesn't fundamentally bother me, but eyebrows do raise a bit.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;859517I'd be hard-pressed to argue against the d10 thing. I mean, it's been working fine for us with the d8, but I sure wouldn't see a d10 as egregious.

They just take a lot of damage, on a bad roll, or bad luck when they can't disengage safely.  Similar to a Fighter, but the Fighter can soak it with both armour and HP.  Front Line combat types SHOULD get a D10 in case they really need to stand toe to toe.  Just my thing.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;859517This something of a tangent, but I look at the Wizard and wonder how they ended up letting them be generalists with specialists benefits, which seems to encroach so much on the territory of the other casters.  When a 2nd level evocation wizard gets something that is arguably better (opinions vary, of course) than the spell point fueled careful spell of the Sorcerer,  and when the wizard gets spell back on one short rest as well, yadda yadda.   It doesn't fundamentally bother me, but eyebrows do raise a bit.

It's kinda literary accurate.  I mean, in a lot of fantasy novels, the 'wizard' types are often named after their 'school'.  Enchanters, Oracles (AKA Diviners), Witches (Abjurers/Transmuters) so on and so forth.  The fact that Wizards are originally in D&D as generalists is literally opposite from Fantasy sources.

I'll be honest, I don't like the way wizards are written up like generalists with specialist benefits. There's never a reason not to take certain spells as you level (Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball due to lack of fog of war initiative, etc). Your school label is essentially irrelevant as you only get benefits, never restricted from anything like before with opposing schools.

Outside of scribing faster certain spells you mainly check the school features for synergy with planning your spell acquisition per level. It's very "what have you done for me lately" and chargen planning. And learning new spells on your own is not as important as it used to be with how generous you get spells per level.

There is quite a bit about magic that I do not like in this edition: infinite cantrips, not natively interruptable by physical combat, lenient material component rules, lenient somatic component rules, generous spellbook start, generous spells per level, fast early leveling frontloading massive spell list, generous writing of spells (i.e. Find Familiar, Find Steed), etc. White washing away much of the challenge of a school specialist just adds to the list.

But of all of WotC's editions, 5e is the least shitty in my opinion. Which is remarkable considering my lack of faith in them at the time. It's actually enjoyable and easy with which to tinker.

Quote from: Opaopajr;859536I'll be honest, I don't like the way wizards are written up like generalists with specialist benefits. There's never a reason not to take certain spells as you level (Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball due to lack of fog of war initiative, etc). Your school label is essentially irrelevant as you only get benefits, never restricted from anything like before with opposing schools.

Outside of scribing faster certain spells you mainly check the school features for synergy with planning your spell acquisition per level. It's very "what have you done for me lately" and chargen planning. And learning new spells on your own is not as important as it used to be with how generous you get spells per level.

There is quite a bit about magic that I do not like in this edition: infinite cantrips, not natively interruptable by physical combat, lenient material component rules, lenient somatic component rules, generous spellbook start, generous spells per level, fast early leveling frontloading massive spell list, generous writing of spells (i.e. Find Familiar, Find Steed), etc. White washing away much of the challenge of a school specialist just adds to the list.

But of all of WotC's editions, 5e is the least shitty in my opinion. Which is remarkable considering my lack of faith in them at the time. It's actually enjoyable and easy with which to tinker.

I'm with you. Despite my gripes with a few of the design points and default dial settings, I really like 5e, though.

It's amazing how much having individual fog-of-war "fixes" things in 5e for me. I haven't really found a solution to the infinite cantrip thing.

But enough thread jacking for me!

Quote from: Natty Bodak;859539I'm with you. Despite my gripes with a few of the design points and default dial settings, I really like 5e, though.

It's amazing how much having individual fog-of-war "fixes" things in 5e for me. I haven't really found a solution to the infinite cantrip thing.

But enough thread jacking for me!

No way! I want to know how you (and others) have implemented fof-of-war in 5e.

Quote from: The Butcher;859543No way! I want to know how you (and others) have implemented fof-of-war in 5e.

We basically use the Speed Factor option presented in the DMG, but without the, uh ... Speed factors.

The net of it:
Everybody declares their action.
Roll initiative and keep it to yourself and wait for your number to be called (usually calling out groups of five) - or if we are remote the gm just rolls for everyone online.
On your turn, use your bonus action and move action as you like, and either do your declared action or nothing.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

A couple of considerations for spellcasting. If you declare to cast a spell with a time of 1 action, then if you are damaged prior to your initiative you make a concentration check. If you fail your action is wasted but the slot is unused.

With the spells that last until the start/end of your next turn, you may find that casters can randomly get more or less time out of them. Since there doesn't seem to be much cheese to be done with this system when initiative is rerolled each round, we allow anyone who rolls higher on the next round to choose to stay with their old slower initiative if they want the full run time of the spell.

That's the gist of it. We may have to tweak as this group levels and we encounter things we didn't foresee, but it feel good to us.

I think Opa had a system as well, which is probably better thought it than ours.

Nope, it sounds like yours might be better thought out. I was talking about introducing old school spell interrupt from physical combat. But yours is the same with a spoonful of sugar (brilliant add about preserving the spell slot), so it'll make the medicine go down.

Not personally so hot on selecting last init over new, especially for spellcasters, but I chalk that up to extra frosting atop the medicine. Not what I'd want, but I can see how it'll sweeten the pitch. I feel people neglect Ready action as is, but it really is not that big a deal. As for squeezing extra magic juice out of something like Shield? I'm on the "tough titty" faction — for I am cruel and my viking horns are sharp.

Fun part of fog of war is when opponents engage in melee when you're still trying to take advantage of range AoEs. Fireball target is line of sight, first thing it hits. So getting in the way can bring the Fireball AoE dangerously closer. Fog of war screws with tactics big time. Good times, good times.

:Citation:
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
(D&D 5e Basic, August 2014. p. 80.)

Best be sure to ignore Speed Factors! DEX needs nary an ounce more love! Gleefully remove its init benefit.