I wonder if it would really be that broken to just give monks unlimited ki at level 20? I mean, by that time Fighters are making at least 4 attacks with enchanted weapons, casters are changing reality, and Barbarians straight up break the strength and con limits.
Any serious enemies they face will probably have immunity to paralysis and crazy con bonuses, so no spamming stunning strike.
I think it wouldn't be broken at all for the monk class, but it might be broken for some subclasses. Then again, depends of what you consider broken at 20th level. If you say "Anything that can't be done by anyone else" then yeah, the four elements running away spamming Wall of Fire without a cost or the Mercy healing and resurrecting everyone might seem a bit overpowered.
Im not sure it would. My mind went to the Open Palm subclasses' Quivering Palm, but that takes an action to use, meaning giving up a turn of attacks for similar damage. Way of Mercy and Kensei also have limits on their damaging abilities.
I think the biggest issue would be the healing of the Way of Mercy and the self heal from Tasha's. For that, maybe regaining all lost ki points upon entering a fight would be better.
Monks should be aware of the charm effect to use stillness of mind?
What you're saying makes no sense. Stillness of Mind is like the Lucky feat, it's an ability that the player is using, not the character. From a flavor standpoint it is the character's mind being stilled thanks to their training to resist mind altering effects, but from a meta perspective it is the player's choice. Just like how a DnD character can't just trigger their own luck, but a player can still use a luck point, this ability shouldn't be nerfed by implying that the monk needs to be aware of the effect on them. That would just make it easier for DMs to have excuses for a player to not use the ability as intended, which is to resist mind control. It's not supposed to be super hard for monks to negate because that is literally the point of the ability. It would be like making it harder for Rogues to use their blindsense because invisible creatures are supposed to be hard to detect.
In terms of the game, the Lucky feat is the only actual example of a sort of 4th wall breaking feat, where the character isn't directly doing something (other than maybe depending on their luck at that moment). Every other character feature is described as something tied to the character's agency. Even with something like wild magic, they cause it to happen.
Its less like rogues and blindsense, and more like saying blindsense doesn't allow them to see creatures within range that are on the ethereal plane. Because that is a totally different feature than blind sight.
Maybe WotC meant for Stillness of Mind to just be something that totally negates charmed and frightened, even when it comes to using it. There is a Jeremy Crawford tweet ruling that way. It just doesn't come through rules as written. The same way a dominated Barb cannot attack themselves to free themselves of a Dominate Person spell, it doesn't make sense that a monk could directly contradict the orders of Dominate Person by circumventing them.
Im not sure it would. My mind went to the Open Palm subclasses' Quivering Palm, but that takes an action to use, meaning giving up a turn of attacks for similar damage. Way of Mercy and Kensei also have limits on their damaging abilities.
I think the biggest issue would be the healing of the Way of Mercy and the self heal from Tasha's. For that, maybe regaining all lost ki points upon entering a fight would be better.
idk about you but my mind went straight to monk of long death. Infinite life and infinite 20d10 damage every turn? Yes please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Except that the Lucky feat applies to dice explicitly and does not require an action. Actions, bonus actions and reactions are things that your character must do. If Wizards of the Coast wanted the effect to be passive mental fortitude it would be a saving throw bonus, immunity, or an end of turn effect.
The way I am saying it works is not a nerf; the Monk is literally the only class in the game that can do something about being charmed once it knows (or suspects) that it is charmed. Spellcasters can sort of do it with the right spells, but these do not apply universally.
And if you want to argue interpretations, please do not just blanket state that yours is "as intended"; you absolutely need to give a citation for that. I've stated that what I'm saying is how I believe it's intended to be used but I'm not pretending that I know for certain, which is why I'm very specifically saying that it needs to be clarified.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I've viewed the stillness of mind ability as a reflex reaction. They have trained their mind so much that it instinctively rejects the charmed spell without the monk really being aware of the spell.
In my opinion, you appear to be overthinking the issue.
I've viewed the stillness of mind ability as a reflex reaction. They have trained their mind so much that it instinctively rejects the charmed spell without the monk really being aware of the spell. In my opinion, you appear to be overthinking the issue.
In my opinion, you appear to be underthinking the issue 😝
If it's a "reflex action" then why does it a) not say so, b) has no kind of reflex condition (characters do not know they are charmed) and c) require a full action? It's not a reaction, it's not automatic, it's an action. Actions are things your character must do, and it makes no sense for a character to do something to counteract an effect about which they are unaware. Stillness of Mind as a principle is not something you always have, it's something you seek to achieve through meditation, so it requiring a conscious decision to re-centre yourself (and still your mind) makes more sense, and fits the feature being an action; if the Monk were intended to always be in control then the feature would be something passive (bonus to saves vs. charm/fear, immunity, end of turn clear etc.).
The whole point of charm is that it's insidious; a charmed creature should not be allowed to lock the charmer in a room just because they're not actively doing anything else, because they have no reason to do-so. The same is true of Stillness of Mind; if you can't justify why a character is taking an action a DM should not permit it, as acting on something the player knows but the character doesn't is metagaming, which is the opposite of roleplaying, and D&D is a roleplaying game.
Yet again, it's a secondary feature on top of Evasion (a fantastic defensive feature on a class that already has Patient Defence); I do not for one moment believe that it is intended to be as powerful as many people want it to be. It's also not a weak feature even when awareness is required, because (and the for the millionth time now) it makes Monks the only class with an in-built way to overcome charm once they realise something is wrong. When other classes realise something is wrong there is nothing they can do about it, barring certain sub-class features or situational spells.
Again though, what I am asking for is that it be clarified by the rules designers, not by people who are unhappy that how I believe the secondary feature Stillness of Mind is intended to work is less powerful than they want it to be.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Again though, what I am asking for is that it be clarified by the rules designers, not by people who are unhappy that how I believe the secondary feature Stillness of Mind is intended to work is less powerful than they want it to be.
If you want a ruling from the game designers, then go ask them. Ask a question to Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford on twitter. It is pointless of you (and a waste of everyone's time) to create a debate here when you are not going to listen to any viewpoint that disagrees with yours.
Again though, what I am asking for is that it be clarified by the rules designers, not by people who are unhappy that how I believe the secondary feature Stillness of Mind is intended to work is less powerful than they want it to be.
If you want a ruling from the game designers, then go ask them. Ask a question to Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford on twitter. It is pointless of you (and a waste of everyone's time) to create a debate here when you are not going to listen to any viewpoint that disagrees with yours.
This is a thread for saying what we want as changes to the Monk class in 5.5e; the fact Stillness of Mind is unclear on how it's actually intended to work, not helped by charm effects in general being quite vague with not enough examples for players/DMs makes that a reasonable thing to ask for.
I'm not the one seeking to debate the finer points of how it's supposed to work, all I said is that I want it clarified as one of the changes I'd like to see, and justified why. Plenty of people have already asked for clarification, but aside from some tweets that do not constitute official rulings (and do not make it any clearer) there has never been a proper sage advice covering it.
You accuse me of not listening to any other viewpoint but that's simply not true; I'm happy to debate any reasoned position on why it should work differently, though I'd prefer to do so on another thread, and ideally with more substantive arguments than accusations I want it nerfed or are am just somehow wrong without any real detail as most posts have been. I'm sorry to the OP for the amount of space this has already occupied, as I never wanted to debate it here, but if someone criticises my position I will respond.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think they should go the route of giving monks the most attacks even if that means they step down the damage.
I also think they need more options (as a baseline class) for what debilitations they impose with punches. Stunning should likely be removed and instead they give out several different punch types that they can do instead.
Subclasses could add additional options.
Combo that with a sheer number of punches (3 punches with flurry @ 11th level) and you have a reason for monk to use their speed and mobility to get to a target.
As the originator of this thread I don’t have a problem with healthy debate on what we would like to see for the monk come 2024. If the Stillness of Mind debate has gone a little far afield, that’s fine. I think many of us would like to see something done with it.
@Optimus, I kind of agree it might be nice if they had the most attacks, or at least on par with fighter, but I’m not sure if going with less damage is necessary since many of us think they need a bump. And considering many would be using weapon damage in place of their unarmed damage for the attack action attacks, lowering unarmed damage wouldn’t help. Would only affect FoB or BA attack.
I like the idea of different punches. I kind of think Open Hand’s Open Hand Technique options should be default core monk abilities and Open Hand have a different set of abilities at that level.
As the originator of this thread I don’t have a problem with healthy debate on what we would like to see for the monk come 2024. If the Stillness of Mind debate has gone a little far afield, that’s fine. I think many of us would like to see something done with it.
@Optimus, I kind of agree it might be nice if they had the most attacks, or at least on par with fighter, but I’m not sure if going with less damage is necessary since many of us think they need a bump. And considering many would be using weapon damage in place of their unarmed damage for the attack action attacks, lowering unarmed damage wouldn’t help. Would only affect FoB or BA attack.
I like the idea of different punches. I kind of think Open Hand’s Open Hand Technique options should be default core monk abilities and Open Hand have a different set of abilities at that level.
Fair points.
Basically I just want them to have more of an identity now than they do currently. At least in my experience them being super mobile is fun but rarely actually ends with anything significant because besides Stunning they really don't have a ton to do once they get there.
I like the idea of different punches. I kind of think Open Hand’s Open Hand Technique options should be default core monk abilities and Open Hand have a different set of abilities at that level.
THIS pretty much. High level monks rely too much on Stun, which is a likely successful save on a lot of monsters. Monks need more variety at high levels besides taking out frail Wizards and Minions.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Yeah this is the one that's weird considering the need for ASI.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Yeah this is the one that's weird considering the need for ASI.
I think adding an ASI at 10 would be very good
I think there would need to be more feats that monks can benefit from though. Right now there are some somewhat useful ones like Mobile and Crusher. But nothing that keeps up with the power of things like Pole Arm Masters, Sharpshooter, Fey Touched, etc.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Arguably, Monks need that ASI sooner than Rogues since Rogues can Disengage and Dash , all without spending any limited resources. Level 1 to 3 are easily the worst Monk levels: too few resources to do much besides survive and no access to Stun or ability to run up walls. So they have a more basic interest in an early ASI. At level 10, it's a bit late.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Arguably, Monks need that ASI sooner than Rogues since Rogues can Disengage and Dash , all without spending any limited resources. Level 1 to 3 are easily the worst Monk levels: too few resources to do much besides survive and no access to Stun or ability to run up walls. So they have a more basic interest in an early ASI. At level 10, it's a bit late.
You could do an ASI at level 6 like a fighter, but I don’t see any earlier than that. But honestly I would hope they get rid of the MADness of the monk (along with other classes) so extra ASI’s aren’t an issue to work around the MAD problem.
Arguably, Monks need that ASI sooner than Rogues since Rogues can Disengage and Dash , all without spending any limited resources. Level 1 to 3 are easily the worst Monk levels: too few resources to do much besides survive and no access to Stun or ability to run up walls. So they have a more basic interest in an early ASI. At level 10, it's a bit late.
I'd actually argue the opposite; my experience has always been that Monks start out strong and it's the later levels where they aren't seeing as much progress. I've never felt I wasn't holding my own just fine through levels 1 to 9-ish. And by that point you have a good amount of Ki to work with so the later levels aren't that bad either, they're just a bit lacking compared to what other martials start getting for higher level play.
Sure, we have to spend Ki to use various abilities, but they're extremely good abilities. Patient Defence is arguably one of the best defensive abilities in the game, and Flurry of Blows will let you put out more damage than a Rogue can at earlier levels.
I've never particularly had a problem with Ki to Dash because we get increased speed at level 2; Rogues need their free double Dash just to keep up, and they're also more likely to want to Disengage than the Monk in order to later Hide, though I could maybe see an argument for free disengage purely because often I just use Patient Defence instead since it means opportunity attack(s) are likely to miss anyway, and it lasts until the start of your next turn (so applies to regular enemy attacks as well).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Im not sure it would. My mind went to the Open Palm subclasses' Quivering Palm, but that takes an action to use, meaning giving up a turn of attacks for similar damage. Way of Mercy and Kensei also have limits on their damaging abilities.
I think the biggest issue would be the healing of the Way of Mercy and the self heal from Tasha's. For that, maybe regaining all lost ki points upon entering a fight would be better.
In terms of the game, the Lucky feat is the only actual example of a sort of 4th wall breaking feat, where the character isn't directly doing something (other than maybe depending on their luck at that moment). Every other character feature is described as something tied to the character's agency. Even with something like wild magic, they cause it to happen.
Its less like rogues and blindsense, and more like saying blindsense doesn't allow them to see creatures within range that are on the ethereal plane. Because that is a totally different feature than blind sight.
Maybe WotC meant for Stillness of Mind to just be something that totally negates charmed and frightened, even when it comes to using it. There is a Jeremy Crawford tweet ruling that way. It just doesn't come through rules as written. The same way a dominated Barb cannot attack themselves to free themselves of a Dominate Person spell, it doesn't make sense that a monk could directly contradict the orders of Dominate Person by circumventing them.
idk about you but my mind went straight to monk of long death. Infinite life and infinite 20d10 damage every turn? Yes please.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Except that the Lucky feat applies to dice explicitly and does not require an action. Actions, bonus actions and reactions are things that your character must do. If Wizards of the Coast wanted the effect to be passive mental fortitude it would be a saving throw bonus, immunity, or an end of turn effect.
The way I am saying it works is not a nerf; the Monk is literally the only class in the game that can do something about being charmed once it knows (or suspects) that it is charmed. Spellcasters can sort of do it with the right spells, but these do not apply universally.
And if you want to argue interpretations, please do not just blanket state that yours is "as intended"; you absolutely need to give a citation for that. I've stated that what I'm saying is how I believe it's intended to be used but I'm not pretending that I know for certain, which is why I'm very specifically saying that it needs to be clarified.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I've viewed the stillness of mind ability as a reflex reaction. They have trained their mind so much that it instinctively rejects the charmed spell without the monk really being aware of the spell.
In my opinion, you appear to be overthinking the issue.
In my opinion, you appear to be underthinking the issue 😝
If it's a "reflex action" then why does it a) not say so, b) has no kind of reflex condition (characters do not know they are charmed) and c) require a full action? It's not a reaction, it's not automatic, it's an action. Actions are things your character must do, and it makes no sense for a character to do something to counteract an effect about which they are unaware. Stillness of Mind as a principle is not something you always have, it's something you seek to achieve through meditation, so it requiring a conscious decision to re-centre yourself (and still your mind) makes more sense, and fits the feature being an action; if the Monk were intended to always be in control then the feature would be something passive (bonus to saves vs. charm/fear, immunity, end of turn clear etc.).
The whole point of charm is that it's insidious; a charmed creature should not be allowed to lock the charmer in a room just because they're not actively doing anything else, because they have no reason to do-so. The same is true of Stillness of Mind; if you can't justify why a character is taking an action a DM should not permit it, as acting on something the player knows but the character doesn't is metagaming, which is the opposite of roleplaying, and D&D is a roleplaying game.
Yet again, it's a secondary feature on top of Evasion (a fantastic defensive feature on a class that already has Patient Defence); I do not for one moment believe that it is intended to be as powerful as many people want it to be. It's also not a weak feature even when awareness is required, because (and the for the millionth time now) it makes Monks the only class with an in-built way to overcome charm once they realise something is wrong. When other classes realise something is wrong there is nothing they can do about it, barring certain sub-class features or situational spells.
Again though, what I am asking for is that it be clarified by the rules designers, not by people who are unhappy that how I believe the secondary feature Stillness of Mind is intended to work is less powerful than they want it to be.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If you want a ruling from the game designers, then go ask them. Ask a question to Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford on twitter. It is pointless of you (and a waste of everyone's time) to create a debate here when you are not going to listen to any viewpoint that disagrees with yours.
This is a thread for saying what we want as changes to the Monk class in 5.5e; the fact Stillness of Mind is unclear on how it's actually intended to work, not helped by charm effects in general being quite vague with not enough examples for players/DMs makes that a reasonable thing to ask for.
I'm not the one seeking to debate the finer points of how it's supposed to work, all I said is that I want it clarified as one of the changes I'd like to see, and justified why. Plenty of people have already asked for clarification, but aside from some tweets that do not constitute official rulings (and do not make it any clearer) there has never been a proper sage advice covering it.
You accuse me of not listening to any other viewpoint but that's simply not true; I'm happy to debate any reasoned position on why it should work differently, though I'd prefer to do so on another thread, and ideally with more substantive arguments than accusations I want it nerfed or are am just somehow wrong without any real detail as most posts have been. I'm sorry to the OP for the amount of space this has already occupied, as I never wanted to debate it here, but if someone criticises my position I will respond.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think they should go the route of giving monks the most attacks even if that means they step down the damage.
I also think they need more options (as a baseline class) for what debilitations they impose with punches. Stunning should likely be removed and instead they give out several different punch types that they can do instead.
Subclasses could add additional options.
Combo that with a sheer number of punches (3 punches with flurry @ 11th level) and you have a reason for monk to use their speed and mobility to get to a target.
As the originator of this thread I don’t have a problem with healthy debate on what we would like to see for the monk come 2024. If the Stillness of Mind debate has gone a little far afield, that’s fine. I think many of us would like to see something done with it.
@Optimus, I kind of agree it might be nice if they had the most attacks, or at least on par with fighter, but I’m not sure if going with less damage is necessary since many of us think they need a bump. And considering many would be using weapon damage in place of their unarmed damage for the attack action attacks, lowering unarmed damage wouldn’t help. Would only affect FoB or BA attack.
I like the idea of different punches. I kind of think Open Hand’s Open Hand Technique options should be default core monk abilities and Open Hand have a different set of abilities at that level.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Fair points.
Basically I just want them to have more of an identity now than they do currently. At least in my experience them being super mobile is fun but rarely actually ends with anything significant because besides Stunning they really don't have a ton to do once they get there.
THIS pretty much. High level monks rely too much on Stun, which is a likely successful save on a lot of monsters. Monks need more variety at high levels besides taking out frail Wizards and Minions.
Also, I don't see why Monks shouldn't get a d10 HD. How can they be any less tough than a Fighter with the Archery Fighting who tries to shoot everything?
Personally I'm fine with the d8 hit dice considering we have Patient Defence and Evasion; we're durable by other means.
The bigger question mark for me is why we don't get an Ability Score Increase at 10th level like Rogues do, as that would make taking a feat a lot less of a balancing act, or make it easier for a Strength Monk to still have a good Dexterity.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah this is the one that's weird considering the need for ASI.
I think adding an ASI at 10 would be very good
I think there would need to be more feats that monks can benefit from though. Right now there are some somewhat useful ones like Mobile and Crusher. But nothing that keeps up with the power of things like Pole Arm Masters, Sharpshooter, Fey Touched, etc.
Arguably, Monks need that ASI sooner than Rogues since Rogues can Disengage and Dash , all without spending any limited resources. Level 1 to 3 are easily the worst Monk levels: too few resources to do much besides survive and no access to Stun or ability to run up walls. So they have a more basic interest in an early ASI. At level 10, it's a bit late.
You could do an ASI at level 6 like a fighter, but I don’t see any earlier than that.
But honestly I would hope they get rid of the MADness of the monk (along with other classes) so extra ASI’s aren’t an issue to work around the MAD problem.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'd actually argue the opposite; my experience has always been that Monks start out strong and it's the later levels where they aren't seeing as much progress. I've never felt I wasn't holding my own just fine through levels 1 to 9-ish. And by that point you have a good amount of Ki to work with so the later levels aren't that bad either, they're just a bit lacking compared to what other martials start getting for higher level play.
Sure, we have to spend Ki to use various abilities, but they're extremely good abilities. Patient Defence is arguably one of the best defensive abilities in the game, and Flurry of Blows will let you put out more damage than a Rogue can at earlier levels.
I've never particularly had a problem with Ki to Dash because we get increased speed at level 2; Rogues need their free double Dash just to keep up, and they're also more likely to want to Disengage than the Monk in order to later Hide, though I could maybe see an argument for free disengage purely because often I just use Patient Defence instead since it means opportunity attack(s) are likely to miss anyway, and it lasts until the start of your next turn (so applies to regular enemy attacks as well).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.