And if you want to change it for your game, then fine. But changing something you don't understand isn't going to make it work better because you lack the understanding to know what it lacks. And any such discussion probably belongs in a homebrew forum and not here.
I do understand it from my own experiences with the subclass and I do not feel that really adds much to conversation in a productive way.
I think that there is enough sentiment that the subclass is on the weaker side that I am not alone in the assessment....in fact it would seem the minority position would be that it is viable as is.
While this is of course not fully representative of all DnD Players the fact that it is ranked low in almost every survey that is completed is pretty telling about the quality of the subclass IMO.
I'm struggling to find whatever point you might think is buried in there. I mean, just look at them.
The fanvsvotes link has a mere 148 votes for favorite class. You cannot seriously expect anyone here to pay that even the slightest bit of their mind.
I'm assuming the infogram is showing that 11% of monks are 4E monks. I find that a respectable percentage; given seven different subclasses. The average of which would be 14.29%. But I just don't know. It's a bunch of graphs with no context given. Information is lacking, so what conclusions can we draw? I mean, did you even pass mathematics in high school? How to properly label graphs is basic.
The googledocs class survey is equally meaningless. All I see are lots of numbers and no context given. What's the sample size? Because the last page is just one dude's personal ratings for each subclass.
The only one that is remotely useful is the imgur link showing D&D Beyond's stats, and...it doesn't even discuss the 4E monk.
I feel dumber for having even looked at these. They don't bloody say anything. People can think whatever they want. Having different tastes is allowed. That's one of the reasons there are so many classes and subclasses to play. There's, hopefully, something for everyone. But people can also hate beautiful things and adore utter trash. Correlation does not equate to causation. Something can be popular with the crowd, but what is popular isn't always right. And what is right isn't always popular.
If you consistently finding people not enjoying a subclass then I think its fair to say something is intriniscally off about said subclass. There is plenty of surveys out there that show its a subclass that is not picked a lot or even very well enjoyed by those who pick it.
The "Power to Enjoyment" ratio on the google docs sheet is about the most glaring to me....people view it as both weak and not really enjoyable.
Also if you look at guides the subclass is consistently rated low:
The consistent assessment from a variety of people who spent the time to thoroughly breakdown the subclasses is "Underwhelming" and "There are trap options here"
At some point you kind of have to see it for what it is....a lower tier option for monk.
Consistent Assessment is driven as much by mass perception as it is by anything else. There is nothing saying in any of them that the person ever even played a 4 elements monk to say whether it was fun. There is a lot of hate that goes around by people that have never actually tried things.
I can actually go around and find the same thing for multiple classes and subclasses. Potentially even ones you might like and argue is wrong. Bard for example is an entire class that has had to change perceptions over it and polls about it between the start of 5th edition and now are actually very different about it. And it was almost entirely driven by player perception until people played it finally in groups and showed that it was mechanically strong and familiar to things like Mages now.
Druids are another one that rank consistently low for various reasons but has just enough sway in perception that at least some that dislike them for various reasons will at least admit they can be powerful.
Blade Singers are highly popular even though mechanically they aren't any stronger than several other kinds of mages. They only do something a bit different that takes extra attention and building and play style to make useful that if your not going to buy into any one of those factors with a character it's just not going to be an enjoyable build at all. But it at least has guides to help new players with that and point out that it's a different style of play from playing say Any other kind of Wizard. Even though mechanically in power it can't actually outperform other wizards it is often rated as "the most powerful" or "most popular" only one of those of which is true.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Edit: Small technical detail. The time 5e has been out seems to be closer to 7 years, not 8
Magic Initiate is the no-brainer. Taking MI-Druid gives you Absorb Elements (which is super thematic, and is a quality first level spell across all tiers of play) as well as two of:
Elemental utility: Control Flames, Gust, Mold Earth, Shape Water
Elemental attack: Create Bonfire, Frostbite, Produce Flame, Thunderclap
Other good options that can be reflavored as elemental: Druidcraft, Guidance, Magic Stone, Mending, Primal Savagery, Resistance, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip (Yes, that was all of the Druid cantrips other than the poison damage ones.)
Otherwise, Metamagic Adept technically wouldn't be available (due to Elemonks not getting a "Spellcasting" trait), but as a DM I would absolutely let them take it. Transmuted Spell would be GREAT for this subclass, and you'd be able to use it twice a day to turn Burning Hands into Freezing Hands, or Shatter into Lightning Burst, etc. I guess Subtle Spell or Quickened Spell would be viable second options, but honestly going with only Transmuted Spell twice a day would be the most thematic. Again, it would require a DM ruling to allow it for your Monk, and if you get to that point I'd let them use it on all EDs, not just the spells.
Finally, Fey Touched is good. But Fey Touched is good for everyone always. :)
Man is Fey Touched good! I would allow them to use Ki to cast the spell as well if they picked it and didn't have one of the slot variations I mentioned.
Transmuted would be an awesome addition as well....would make thematic sense as you mentioned. Plus if you dipped Tempest Cleric then you would have the channel divinity to max the damage which feels very Avatarish.
Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, and Telekenetic All have additional flavor or abilities that they can add that expand abilities out more and can key off of Wisdom. which the Monk already wants and as these are useful picks for all Monks that doesn't change here. It's perhaps more true because your going to be Wisdom First most likely. The only downside is you don't have slots to recast their spells. Though I feel there is an argument for making this possible at ones own table through the appropriate number of ki points. But that's just more reason why I advocate for the tweak of a few more ki points for 4 elements monks to begin with.
Elemental Adept is strongest if you have just a single or dual element user in mind. But I have seen this put to really good use by somebody else, specially when combined with doing a few more disciplines that suited their element. (In their case it was acid damage for leaning into earth).
Flames is great if your a Tiefling. it basically gives your 4 elements monk a version of the Sun Soul's 17th level power in a way but your actually more likely to be in close range to make use of it and it doesn't require action economy to trigger. It just triggers by what your doing to begin with.
I wouldn't recommend all of them on a monk but one of the Halfling Feats could be useful on a monk as well if you went with that race selection.
Some of the base monk feats thta people advocate for are useful as well. Though I'd argue a few of them are a bit over hyped.
Also. There is consideration for things like Toughness for monks in general, but even for 4 elements. And things like War Caster though it's only partly useful or resilient in Con can be useful if your leaning into Elemental Disciplines that have Concentration like fly or Hold Person (or any elemental ones you might add on your own).
I had not considered Telekinetic but that does sound interesting. I like all of these to be honest, but the only one I'm iffy on is War Caster. Most of it doesn't seem to mesh with monk like it does for spellcasting classes. The advantage on Con paired with Diamond Soul eventually is fantastic, I am not sure the ignoring somatic components is necessary for a monk, and the opportunity spell is nice, but it has to be single target and I don't think alot of spell-based EDs are single target only.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 8 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
100% this.....which seems more likely...that over 8 years enough people have played or tried the subclass to come to a majority consensus that its a underwhelming subclass OR that literally everyone saying they don't like it has not actually played the class or the subclass at all?
The latter seems like a conspiracy theory to me...why would everyone collude to make people not like the subclass? It's not really a logical conclusion.
I am glad you all like the subclass and think its fine as is....but you are for sure in the vast minority of people who think so.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Except thta I can come to that conclusion when you look at various other details. Like the Guides telling those people how to play things like 4 Elements. None of them actually tell you why 4 elements is different or how it works. Trying to make one just gets it attacked more than anything just like in this thread about how it's all wrong even if you explain that it's not.
Monk Guides are the Guides that have changed the least and all build on perceptions and things that work "well enough" since the beginning and haven't changed at all. Even Fighter Guides have shifted over time to some degree to talk about other possibilities and Fighters are one of the simplest classes over all in the game.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Tasha's won't really change the whole issue. Most people have already written off Ki Fueled strike as if it were a bandaid on a mortal wound. There is already the sentiment that it doesn't really fix anything with 4 elements monk. Even though it makes them even stronger than they were before with the proper usage. You can basically watch it be basically written off in real time if you watch the various posts and the various you tubers that are all biased against 4 elements to begin with speak with their psuedo authority about it. Many of which still do not acknowledge that there is any way to build a monk other than Dex to the max and then think about Wisdom to boost your AC. And many of them refuse to revisit or reconsider the idea that there is any other way.
Perception again is just pushing reality aside. It's saying "You don't matter because our minds were already made up for us 7 years ago."
Edit: Also as further evidence to Refute this whole "It would have changed over the last 7 years" Argument. Take a look at what people used to think of Bards. Bards were considered jokes and gimmicks no matter who powerful they got from 3.x/PF all the way up to 5th edition. They were the novelty class that you took for RP purposes. Not because you wanted any power of them. They were in this state for well over a decade. No matter how much they were played the common mass perception of them did not really change. Though a few would fight hard to say that it just wasn't true. It's only in 5th edition where they've been watered down into Wizard with a Gimmick that people have suddenly decided they were powerful. Even though they were doing some of this stuff and sometimes much more all along.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Except thta I can come to that conclusion when you look at various other details. Like the Guides telling those people how to play things like 4 Elements. None of them actually tell you why 4 elements is different or how it works. Trying to make one just gets it attacked more than anything just like in this thread about how it's all wrong even if you explain that it's not.
Monk Guides are the Guides that have changed the least and all build on perceptions and things that work "well enough" since the beginning and haven't changed at all. Even Fighter Guides have shifted over time to some degree to talk about other possibilities and Fighters are one of the simplest classes over all in the game.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Tasha's won't really change the whole issue. Most people have already written off Ki Fueled strike as if it were a bandaid on a mortal wound. There is already the sentiment that it doesn't really fix anything with 4 elements monk. Even though it makes them even stronger than they were before with the proper usage. You can basically watch it be basically written off in real time if you watch the various posts and the various you tubers that are all biased against 4 elements to begin with speak with their psuedo authority about it. Many of which still do not acknowledge that there is any way to build a monk other than Dex to the max and then think about Wisdom to boost your AC. And many of them refuse to revisit or reconsider the idea that there is any other way.
Perception again is just pushing reality aside. It's saying "You don't matter because our minds were already made up for us 7 years ago."
Because they were right then and are right now....
Nothing has changed to make them that much better until Tasha's came around. Why would your perceptions change at all when the subclass has been underwhelming since day 1?
Especially when better and better options keep coming out like Way of Mercy?
I had not considered Telekinetic but that does sound interesting. I like all of these to be honest, but the only one I'm iffy on is War Caster. Most of it doesn't seem to mesh with monk like it does for spellcasting classes. The advantage on Con paired with Diamond Soul eventually is fantastic, I am not sure the ignoring somatic components is necessary for a monk, and the opportunity spell is nice, but it has to be single target and I don't think alot of spell-based EDs are single target only.
I did say it was only partly useful. The somatic component part is redundant. It's pointless on a monk because hteir hands are unlikely to be full anyway. But it's something that you could take advantage of if they were. And the Reaction part is onyl useful if you work in Elemental discipline spells that are single target. Which is on the player and the DM at an individual table as home brew to do sadly. But the Con part is one of the most valuable and most used parts of that feat to begin with. Which is what makes it partly useful while the other two were only ever situational even on Casters where it's considered a must have.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Except thta I can come to that conclusion when you look at various other details. Like the Guides telling those people how to play things like 4 Elements. None of them actually tell you why 4 elements is different or how it works. Trying to make one just gets it attacked more than anything just like in this thread about how it's all wrong even if you explain that it's not.
Monk Guides are the Guides that have changed the least and all build on perceptions and things that work "well enough" since the beginning and haven't changed at all. Even Fighter Guides have shifted over time to some degree to talk about other possibilities and Fighters are one of the simplest classes over all in the game.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Tasha's won't really change the whole issue. Most people have already written off Ki Fueled strike as if it were a bandaid on a mortal wound. There is already the sentiment that it doesn't really fix anything with 4 elements monk. Even though it makes them even stronger than they were before with the proper usage. You can basically watch it be basically written off in real time if you watch the various posts and the various you tubers that are all biased against 4 elements to begin with speak with their psuedo authority about it. Many of which still do not acknowledge that there is any way to build a monk other than Dex to the max and then think about Wisdom to boost your AC. And many of them refuse to revisit or reconsider the idea that there is any other way.
Perception again is just pushing reality aside. It's saying "You don't matter because our minds were already made up for us 7 years ago."
Because they were right then and are right now....
Nothing has changed to make them that much better until Tasha's came around. Why would your perceptions change at all when the subclass has been underwhelming since day 1?
Especially when better and better options keep coming out like Way of Mercy?
I'll repost my edit here as well in part to response.
Edit: Also as further evidence to Refute this whole "It would have changed over the last 7 years" Argument. Take a look at what people used to think of Bards. Bards were considered jokes and gimmicks no matter who powerful they got from 3.x/PF all the way up to 5th edition. They were the novelty class that you took for RP purposes. Not because you wanted any power of them. They were in this state for well over a decade. No matter how much they were played the common mass perception of them did not really change. Though a few would fight hard to say that it just wasn't true. It's only in 5th edition where they've been watered down into Wizard with a Gimmick that people have suddenly decided they were powerful. Even though they were doing some of this stuff and sometimes much more all along.
As for Way of Mercy. it's not better. It's actually weak at higher levels. But most people ignore that because they aren't going to be playing at higher levels. It's front loaded but does not grow much at all in power over the next 17 levels after you obtain it. Where it is really good is in the first couple tiers of play. But that's easy to ignore because that's where most people are going to play it.
Your also undermining your own argument about why it should have hcanged just because people have had a chance to play 4 elements over the last 7 years when you tun around and immediately say "Nothing has changed so why should perceptions change?". You can't argue that perceptions should change for the masses just because a small part of the group has played it while also saying "Nothing has actually changed so there is no reason for people's biases, often given to them by people they see as unofficial authorities, to actually change anyway."
Your actually contradicting yourself. First by syaing they must change simply from being played and then basically saying that playing them isn't enough to change it.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Except thta I can come to that conclusion when you look at various other details. Like the Guides telling those people how to play things like 4 Elements. None of them actually tell you why 4 elements is different or how it works. Trying to make one just gets it attacked more than anything just like in this thread about how it's all wrong even if you explain that it's not.
Monk Guides are the Guides that have changed the least and all build on perceptions and things that work "well enough" since the beginning and haven't changed at all. Even Fighter Guides have shifted over time to some degree to talk about other possibilities and Fighters are one of the simplest classes over all in the game.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Tasha's won't really change the whole issue. Most people have already written off Ki Fueled strike as if it were a bandaid on a mortal wound. There is already the sentiment that it doesn't really fix anything with 4 elements monk. Even though it makes them even stronger than they were before with the proper usage. You can basically watch it be basically written off in real time if you watch the various posts and the various you tubers that are all biased against 4 elements to begin with speak with their psuedo authority about it. Many of which still do not acknowledge that there is any way to build a monk other than Dex to the max and then think about Wisdom to boost your AC. And many of them refuse to revisit or reconsider the idea that there is any other way.
Perception again is just pushing reality aside. It's saying "You don't matter because our minds were already made up for us 7 years ago."
Because they were right then and are right now....
Nothing has changed to make them that much better until Tasha's came around. Why would your perceptions change at all when the subclass has been underwhelming since day 1?
Especially when better and better options keep coming out like Way of Mercy?
I'll repost my edit here as well in part to response.
Edit: Also as further evidence to Refute this whole "It would have changed over the last 7 years" Argument. Take a look at what people used to think of Bards. Bards were considered jokes and gimmicks no matter who powerful they got from 3.x/PF all the way up to 5th edition. They were the novelty class that you took for RP purposes. Not because you wanted any power of them. They were in this state for well over a decade. No matter how much they were played the common mass perception of them did not really change. Though a few would fight hard to say that it just wasn't true. It's only in 5th edition where they've been watered down into Wizard with a Gimmick that people have suddenly decided they were powerful. Even though they were doing some of this stuff and sometimes much more all along.
As for Way of Mercy. it's not better. It's actually weak at higher levels. But most people ignore that because they aren't going to be playing at higher levels. It's front loaded but does not grow much at all in power over the next 17 levels after you obtain it. Where it is really good is in the first couple tiers of play. But that's easy to ignore because that's where most people are going to play it.
Your also undermining your own argument about why it should have hcanged just because people have had a chance to play 4 elements over the last 7 years when you tun around and immediately say "Nothing has changed so why should perceptions change?". You can't argue that perceptions should change for the masses just because a small part of the group has played it while also saying "Nothing has actually changed so there is no reason for people's biases, often given to them by people they see as unofficial authorities, to actually change anyway."
Your actually contradicting yourself. First by syaing they must change simply from being played and then basically saying that playing them isn't enough to change it.
I mean...no.
If the subclass was bad to start and nothing has changed to make it better it will still be bad.
Nothing fixed the 4 element monk so its still underwhelming like the day it released in the PHB. There is no contradiction there as people saw it then and still see it now. If your car is a junker when you buy it no amount of driving will suddenly make the car run better..in fact as new cars come out it becomes more and more obvious how bad your car is and you want to trade it in for something better.
All the books that have come out before Tasha's have done nothing to change base monk or the 4Element subclass so why would anyone expect it to get better? They shouldn't and didn't and thus we have people still putting at bottom tier subclass.
Tasha's options now at least give you some interesting things to do more than before so time will tell if people's perceptions change on it now.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Another strong assumption you are making about other people
It's not an assumption. Go through these forums. You'll find thread after thread that all boils down to this same point. You'll find plenty of them that boil down to the same thing about Monk as a whole. If I were to go through these forums to dig up proof of that It would take me a week and the post would be so long that nobody would read it. Or all the links that i put into it that show what I'm saying.
They have a hard enough time just reading the length ofsome of my explanations for things already.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Another strong assumption you are making about other people
It's not an assumption. Go through these forums. You'll find thread after thread that all boils down to this same point. You'll find plenty of them that boil down to the same thing about Monk as a whole. If I were to go through these forums to dig up proof of that It would take me a week and the post would be so long that nobody would read it. Or all the links that i put into it that show what I'm saying.
They have a hard enough time just reading the length ofsome of my explanations for things already.
Just because you think people haven't thought it through does not make it true. If a common trend appears for most people its a pretty good bet that people have thought about it and found it wanting.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Another strong assumption you are making about other people
It's not an assumption. Go through these forums. You'll find thread after thread that all boils down to this same point. You'll find plenty of them that boil down to the same thing about Monk as a whole. If I were to go through these forums to dig up proof of that It would take me a week and the post would be so long that nobody would read it. Or all the links that i put into it that show what I'm saying.
They have a hard enough time just reading the length ofsome of my explanations for things already.
Just because you think people haven't thought it through does not make it true. If a common trend appears for most people its a pretty good bet that people have thought about it and found it wanting.
Because I think that's what's happening? I'm having trouble just getting you to think things through in this entire thread. But your going to tell me how the world works and how I'm making assumptions. your my own living proof right in this very thread about stubborn-ness over facts.
It's only because of a work of a very small few of us that some have even accepted that there might be another way to build a monk than what all the guides spew out. Bringing up differences in thread after thread like this. But there are still people like you that just about every one of your posts are telling us we're wrong. Even when we provide details to show that we're not. Or are you forgetting how you spewed out numbers about the Berserker and how we quickly proved that wrong and you shifted Goal Posts? Or how you personally were adamant that Stunning Strike is always better but Cryovein was brought up to show just one simple... but potentially semi-regular scenario could come up where there are other and potentially better options that are going to cost less than your insistance on relying solely on Stunning Strike to the point that you called it quits by stating both sides could come up with scenario's that lean towards them as your closest thing to an admission that there was another way to do things other than the one you staunchly a bull headedly pursued without consideration for any other way of thinking of things.
I understand you like the subclass and want it work...good!
I am glad you like it and find it entertaining and fun. Most people don't
That just the god's honest truth of it.
No. That's your subjective truth and arrogant dismissal. You've had your mind made up since you came in here. You often have your mind made up to an outcome first and then do what you can to prove that and ignore what doesn't fit.
And I already know that you'll probably tell me that you haven't done that. But this thread says differently. There are several of your posts that have clearly skipped over details said by others about the class and the way it works vs. how people's mass perception why it doesn't work.
As I should have mentioned once beofre in this thread but perhaps it was in another thread. For a long time most people thought the world was flat. They made the same kind of dismissals "everybody knows the world is flat. How quaint of you to think it's not" to the point that some still adamantly hold onto the idea thta it is flat even today. Doesn't mean that it simply was true just because percieved authorities of various kinds and the masses thought it was true.
I understand you like the subclass and want it work...good!
I am glad you like it and find it entertaining and fun. Most people don't
That just the god's honest truth of it.
No. That's your subjective truth and arrogant dismissal. You've had your mind made up since you came in here. You often have your mind made up to an outcome first and then do what you can to prove that and ignore what doesn't fit.
And I already know that you'll probably tell me that you haven't done that. But this thread says differently. There are several of your posts that have clearly skipped over details said by others about the class and the way it works vs. how people's mass perception why it doesn't work.
As I should have mentioned once beofre in this thread but perhaps it was in another thread. For a long time most people thought the world was flat. They made the same kind of dismissals "everybody knows the world is flat. How quaint of you to think it's not" to the point that some still adamantly hold onto the idea thta it is flat even today. Doesn't mean that it simply was true just because percieved authorities of various kinds and the masses thought it was true.
I mean... No.
In this case the world is flat... Much like the interest in 4e monk
I understand you like the subclass and want it work...good!
I am glad you like it and find it entertaining and fun. Most people don't
That just the god's honest truth of it.
No. That's your subjective truth and arrogant dismissal. You've had your mind made up since you came in here. You often have your mind made up to an outcome first and then do what you can to prove that and ignore what doesn't fit.
And I already know that you'll probably tell me that you haven't done that. But this thread says differently. There are several of your posts that have clearly skipped over details said by others about the class and the way it works vs. how people's mass perception why it doesn't work.
As I should have mentioned once beofre in this thread but perhaps it was in another thread. For a long time most people thought the world was flat. They made the same kind of dismissals "everybody knows the world is flat. How quaint of you to think it's not" to the point that some still adamantly hold onto the idea thta it is flat even today. Doesn't mean that it simply was true just because percieved authorities of various kinds and the masses thought it was true.
I mean... No.
In this case the world is flat... Much like the interest in 4e monk
The world isn't flat. There is no in this case about it. You see what you want to see and only what fits your chosen end result. You are the shouting Masses. Not the Truth.
I understand you like the subclass and want it work...good!
I am glad you like it and find it entertaining and fun. Most people don't
That just the god's honest truth of it.
No. That's your subjective truth and arrogant dismissal. You've had your mind made up since you came in here. You often have your mind made up to an outcome first and then do what you can to prove that and ignore what doesn't fit.
And I already know that you'll probably tell me that you haven't done that. But this thread says differently. There are several of your posts that have clearly skipped over details said by others about the class and the way it works vs. how people's mass perception why it doesn't work.
As I should have mentioned once beofre in this thread but perhaps it was in another thread. For a long time most people thought the world was flat. They made the same kind of dismissals "everybody knows the world is flat. How quaint of you to think it's not" to the point that some still adamantly hold onto the idea thta it is flat even today. Doesn't mean that it simply was true just because percieved authorities of various kinds and the masses thought it was true.
I mean... No.
In this case the world is flat... Much like the interest in 4e monk
The world isn't flat. There is no in this case about it. You see what you want to see and only what fits your chosen end result. You are the shouting Masses. Not the Truth.
I really don't want to get into the thick of this argument again. The only thing I want to add to this particular conversation is that you can't assume the majority opinion is wrong because everyone who takes the polls have either never played the subclass or have played it but had no idea what they were doing. D&D 5e has been out for about 7 years at this point, and 4 elements has been around since the beginning. Plenty of people have had the opportunity to play the subclass by now and as far as I know the opinion about 4 elements has remained mostly the same. Who knows, though, maybe things will start to shift with the introduction of Ki Fueled Strike in Tasha's but only time will tell.
Edit: Small technical detail. The time 5e has been out seems to be closer to 7 years, not 8
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I had not considered Telekinetic but that does sound interesting. I like all of these to be honest, but the only one I'm iffy on is War Caster. Most of it doesn't seem to mesh with monk like it does for spellcasting classes. The advantage on Con paired with Diamond Soul eventually is fantastic, I am not sure the ignoring somatic components is necessary for a monk, and the opportunity spell is nice, but it has to be single target and I don't think alot of spell-based EDs are single target only.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
100% this.....which seems more likely...that over 8 years enough people have played or tried the subclass to come to a majority consensus that its a underwhelming subclass OR that literally everyone saying they don't like it has not actually played the class or the subclass at all?
The latter seems like a conspiracy theory to me...why would everyone collude to make people not like the subclass? It's not really a logical conclusion.
I am glad you all like the subclass and think its fine as is....but you are for sure in the vast minority of people who think so.
Except thta I can come to that conclusion when you look at various other details. Like the Guides telling those people how to play things like 4 Elements. None of them actually tell you why 4 elements is different or how it works. Trying to make one just gets it attacked more than anything just like in this thread about how it's all wrong even if you explain that it's not.
Monk Guides are the Guides that have changed the least and all build on perceptions and things that work "well enough" since the beginning and haven't changed at all. Even Fighter Guides have shifted over time to some degree to talk about other possibilities and Fighters are one of the simplest classes over all in the game.
Most avoid 4 elements. Many that have tried it don't realize why it didn't work and so just label it as bad, particularly if they are newer and the guides tell them how to play a completely different type of monk. Even in this thread you can go back and see a long list of posts basically telling us how we are wrong even when we can address the claims of why we were wrong in the response.
Tasha's won't really change the whole issue. Most people have already written off Ki Fueled strike as if it were a bandaid on a mortal wound. There is already the sentiment that it doesn't really fix anything with 4 elements monk. Even though it makes them even stronger than they were before with the proper usage. You can basically watch it be basically written off in real time if you watch the various posts and the various you tubers that are all biased against 4 elements to begin with speak with their psuedo authority about it. Many of which still do not acknowledge that there is any way to build a monk other than Dex to the max and then think about Wisdom to boost your AC. And many of them refuse to revisit or reconsider the idea that there is any other way.
Perception again is just pushing reality aside. It's saying "You don't matter because our minds were already made up for us 7 years ago."
Edit: Also as further evidence to Refute this whole "It would have changed over the last 7 years" Argument. Take a look at what people used to think of Bards. Bards were considered jokes and gimmicks no matter who powerful they got from 3.x/PF all the way up to 5th edition. They were the novelty class that you took for RP purposes. Not because you wanted any power of them. They were in this state for well over a decade. No matter how much they were played the common mass perception of them did not really change. Though a few would fight hard to say that it just wasn't true. It's only in 5th edition where they've been watered down into Wizard with a Gimmick that people have suddenly decided they were powerful. Even though they were doing some of this stuff and sometimes much more all along.
Because they were right then and are right now....
Nothing has changed to make them that much better until Tasha's came around. Why would your perceptions change at all when the subclass has been underwhelming since day 1?
Especially when better and better options keep coming out like Way of Mercy?
I did say it was only partly useful. The somatic component part is redundant. It's pointless on a monk because hteir hands are unlikely to be full anyway. But it's something that you could take advantage of if they were. And the Reaction part is onyl useful if you work in Elemental discipline spells that are single target. Which is on the player and the DM at an individual table as home brew to do sadly. But the Con part is one of the most valuable and most used parts of that feat to begin with. Which is what makes it partly useful while the other two were only ever situational even on Casters where it's considered a must have.
I'll repost my edit here as well in part to response.
Edit: Also as further evidence to Refute this whole "It would have changed over the last 7 years" Argument. Take a look at what people used to think of Bards. Bards were considered jokes and gimmicks no matter who powerful they got from 3.x/PF all the way up to 5th edition. They were the novelty class that you took for RP purposes. Not because you wanted any power of them. They were in this state for well over a decade. No matter how much they were played the common mass perception of them did not really change. Though a few would fight hard to say that it just wasn't true. It's only in 5th edition where they've been watered down into Wizard with a Gimmick that people have suddenly decided they were powerful. Even though they were doing some of this stuff and sometimes much more all along.
As for Way of Mercy. it's not better. It's actually weak at higher levels. But most people ignore that because they aren't going to be playing at higher levels. It's front loaded but does not grow much at all in power over the next 17 levels after you obtain it. Where it is really good is in the first couple tiers of play. But that's easy to ignore because that's where most people are going to play it.
Your also undermining your own argument about why it should have hcanged just because people have had a chance to play 4 elements over the last 7 years when you tun around and immediately say "Nothing has changed so why should perceptions change?". You can't argue that perceptions should change for the masses just because a small part of the group has played it while also saying "Nothing has actually changed so there is no reason for people's biases, often given to them by people they see as unofficial authorities, to actually change anyway."
Your actually contradicting yourself. First by syaing they must change simply from being played and then basically saying that playing them isn't enough to change it.
[Edit: Deleted. I said before I dont want to get into the thick of that argument again, and I am sticking with that]
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I mean...no.
If the subclass was bad to start and nothing has changed to make it better it will still be bad.
Nothing fixed the 4 element monk so its still underwhelming like the day it released in the PHB. There is no contradiction there as people saw it then and still see it now. If your car is a junker when you buy it no amount of driving will suddenly make the car run better..in fact as new cars come out it becomes more and more obvious how bad your car is and you want to trade it in for something better.
All the books that have come out before Tasha's have done nothing to change base monk or the 4Element subclass so why would anyone expect it to get better? They shouldn't and didn't and thus we have people still putting at bottom tier subclass.
Tasha's options now at least give you some interesting things to do more than before so time will tell if people's perceptions change on it now.
It's not an assumption. Go through these forums. You'll find thread after thread that all boils down to this same point. You'll find plenty of them that boil down to the same thing about Monk as a whole. If I were to go through these forums to dig up proof of that It would take me a week and the post would be so long that nobody would read it. Or all the links that i put into it that show what I'm saying.
They have a hard enough time just reading the length ofsome of my explanations for things already.
Just because you think people haven't thought it through does not make it true. If a common trend appears for most people its a pretty good bet that people have thought about it and found it wanting.
Because I think that's what's happening? I'm having trouble just getting you to think things through in this entire thread. But your going to tell me how the world works and how I'm making assumptions. your my own living proof right in this very thread about stubborn-ness over facts.
It's only because of a work of a very small few of us that some have even accepted that there might be another way to build a monk than what all the guides spew out. Bringing up differences in thread after thread like this. But there are still people like you that just about every one of your posts are telling us we're wrong. Even when we provide details to show that we're not. Or are you forgetting how you spewed out numbers about the Berserker and how we quickly proved that wrong and you shifted Goal Posts? Or how you personally were adamant that Stunning Strike is always better but Cryovein was brought up to show just one simple... but potentially semi-regular scenario could come up where there are other and potentially better options that are going to cost less than your insistance on relying solely on Stunning Strike to the point that you called it quits by stating both sides could come up with scenario's that lean towards them as your closest thing to an admission that there was another way to do things other than the one you staunchly a bull headedly pursued without consideration for any other way of thinking of things.
I understand you like the subclass and want it work...good!
I am glad you like it and find it entertaining and fun. Most people don't
That just the god's honest truth of it.
No. That's your subjective truth and arrogant dismissal. You've had your mind made up since you came in here. You often have your mind made up to an outcome first and then do what you can to prove that and ignore what doesn't fit.
And I already know that you'll probably tell me that you haven't done that. But this thread says differently. There are several of your posts that have clearly skipped over details said by others about the class and the way it works vs. how people's mass perception why it doesn't work.
As I should have mentioned once beofre in this thread but perhaps it was in another thread. For a long time most people thought the world was flat. They made the same kind of dismissals "everybody knows the world is flat. How quaint of you to think it's not" to the point that some still adamantly hold onto the idea thta it is flat even today. Doesn't mean that it simply was true just because percieved authorities of various kinds and the masses thought it was true.
The people who don't like it are loud. That doesn't mean they're the majority.
I still have yet to see any evidence that they aren't... In fact I've only seen the opposite.
I mean... No.
In this case the world is flat... Much like the interest in 4e monk
The world isn't flat. There is no in this case about it. You see what you want to see and only what fits your chosen end result. You are the shouting Masses. Not the Truth.
You are projecting me thinks...
That doesn't mean they're right, either. And regardless of whether they're right or wrong, you're just siding with them because of confirmation bias.