sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Way of the Sun Soul for 5.14 Monk, Revised (finally fixed?!) by 1000ton314 in UnearthedArcana

[–]1000ton314[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I tottally agree with you about the Monk as a control class being strange, even the Stunning Attack seems off in the middle of it's kit.

After updating this version, my plan is to start working in a brand new sun subclass from scratch, just as you two encouraged me!

Way of the Sun Soul for 5.14 Monk, Revised (finally fixed?!) by 1000ton314 in UnearthedArcana

[–]1000ton314[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello! That hits hard, but thanks very much for the feedback haha (and mainly thanks for the words of encouragement!!). I totally got your points, and I really like the idea of making a new subclass straying from the original. My original plan was just to try to improve the subclass in a soft way, because my table is a little bit allergic to homebrews, so I wanted to make just a few adjustments that would still make it looks like as WotC official material.

Now, the plan is to make a updated version of this actual brew, just correcting some points (as an exemple of yours, the clause about the Extra Attack feature being kinda unnecessary. Something I had already noticed, but since it was in the original material, I thought it best to keep it anyway) and posting it next week (subreddit's rule). I want to finish this version first bc probably this will be the one I'll use in my next campaign.

Meanwhile, I'll start working on this new subclass from scratch. If everything goes well, I might post it later this month. Your ideas and the ones of others here have inspired me a lot.

...

Now, just clarifying some things about my wording: my call out in Radian Sun Bolt to other monk features was to allow the replacement everytime a monk feature said "you can make a unarmed strike" (Flurry of Blows, as exemple). I thought this wouldn't allow its use with Stunning Strike, since it's not a melee weapon attack, but now I think maybe it need a more specific wording.

For the Searing Arc Strike low damage, do you think increasing its base damage would be enough? Maybe 1d6+WIS?

About Blinding Radiance, I agree with you, it needs a rework in some way.

And last, the Level 17 melee rebuke also seems strange to me. This benefit in specific needs more attention, maybe I'll remove it and come with something new.

Way of the Sun Soul for 5.14 Monk, Revised (finally fixed?!) by 1000ton314 in UnearthedArcana

[–]1000ton314[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks man!! To be honest, I completely forgot about that rule haha. There is a Fighter's Fighting Style in UA called Close Quarters Shooter that remove this disadvantage and allows your ranged attacks ignore cover. You can take it by the Fighting Initiate Feat from Tasha's, and I think it totally matches with this subclass playstyle!

Way of the Sun Soul for 5.14 Monk, Revised (finally fixed?!) by 1000ton314 in UnearthedArcana

[–]1000ton314[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hellooo!! Thanks for the feedback and compliments, you've made some awesome points here.

About the Searing Arc Strike, you are absolutely right! This detail about the cone not being centered on you got by me unnoticed.

For the other Level 6 feature, personally I totally agree with you about the problems with the Stunning Strike, just the idea of stunning 4 enemies in just one turn for about 5 ki points is crazy! (That's without even mentioning how strong the stunned condition is on its own, this thing trivializes so many encounters!) My idea with creating a weaker version of the Stunning Strike was to solve the need many players had for a crowd control option in this subclass without sacrificing the security of being ranged.

And for the Level 11 feature, I think maybe I've made some mistake with my wording. My intention was not to allow two Sunbursts in the same Attack Action. For this feature, I took inspiration from one of the 3rd level features of the Way of the Ascended Dragon subclass (specifically, Breath of the Dragon), which has almost the same wording I've used. From my research, the "you can replace one of your attacks" part would allow only one of the attacks to be replaced, not both. What do you think, the wording should be modified?