ArtificeMeal: I look at the Paladin with their Aura of Protection at level 6 and feel like it's totally fine to give the Monk Diamond Soul at 7. The paladin is a more powerful class on a number of axes and giving the Monk something similarly powerful at a similar level does not feel out of hand.
I don't really connect with the idea of being cruel to monk abilities. They're game features, not sentient beings. I didn't want to just get rid of them, and putting them at 8 and 9 in conjunction with other existing abilities does a lot to even out the power spike you're worried about. Conceptually I think it's weird for a monk to learn how to shake off a specific condition entirely (stillness of mind) before getting better at protecting themselves from harmful effects in a more general way. And I just like the flavor of Evasion and Wall/Water running coming at the same level. They're both predicated on learning how to achieve superhuman levels of speed and agility. Also, remember that these changes leave level 14 and 15 open for completely new abilities that can help even out the power scaling of the class.
Fateless, I've scoured your posts in this thread with a fine tooth comb and you never mentioned that Timeless Body should come at an earlier level. If you're going to accuse us of ignoring things you say you should have at least said them. I'm not sure what you're on about not taking in what you said, because my post pointing out the relative strengths of goodberry was a DIRECT response to your post that made various statements about the high cost of the various ways to use Goodberry. This is your post:
Not all classes or characters are in a position where they can just pick up the magic initiate feat purely for the sake of Good Berry. And that does not actually address the issue that in such a campaign it may not end up being an available spell to anybody. Settings with hooks like Survival tend to do things like that.
And that's completely ignoring that fact that while it is a first level spells. First level spell slots are actually still at somewhat of a premium and may be better spent than simply casting good berry. Considering that your druid even at to level 5 is going to have a total of 9 spell slots to work with of which only 4 of those are first level spells to work with throughout the entire day including potentially healing the party and combat needs and upcasting Goodberry is a complete waste because there is no effect to upcasting it at all. But I thought something like this was actually kind of obvious so I didn't mention it the first time.
So no. It's not something that hasn't mattered for 12 levels. It's something that only hasn't mattered in games where the players and the DM's don't care to keep track. Which is absolutely not the case in something like a Survival focused game.
The very next post is my response where I address you by name and break down why I think you are wrong about a number of things. Here's a quick summary:
1. You say picking up Magic Initiate purely for the sake of Goodberry isn't worth it.
I pointed out that you're ignoring that Magic Initiate grants you two cantrips and that Goodberry is only one benefit of the feat. Saying anyone is taking it purely for Goodberry is a misrepresentation of the feat and makes your conclusion faulty.
2. You say that level 1 spell slot is too precious to use on Goodberry.
I pointed out that in a Survival based campaign Goodberry is absolutely worth one spell slot. You ignored its base function as a healing spell that can be distributed among teammates and used strategically. I point this out, and then add that the context of a survival campaign makes a spell that nullifies an entire aspect of the challenge very much worth it, especially when in conjunction with its base functionality.
3. You say "no, it's not something that hasn't mattered for 12 levels. It's something that only hasn't mattered in games where the players and DM don't care to keep track".
I don't disagree with this. But I do point out that even in campaigns where survival matters, Timeless Body is much too late because the party would already have had those issues solved well before they reach level 15. Again, you've never actually said as such yourself. Considering the nature of your post, which does its best to paint Goodberry in a negative light, I think it's completely relevant to point out Timeless Body fails at its function and why.
Fateless, if you want to engage in a debate about the issues you levied against Goodberry and my rebuttal, go for it. I'm here. But don't try to mire this thread in some petty "he said, she said" thing where you accuse people of ignoring you and plowing past your statements. Especially when your accusations have no basis in truth. I won't have it.
I don't really connect with the idea of being cruel to monk abilities. They're game features, not sentient beings. I didn't want to just get rid of them, and putting them at 8 and 9 in conjunction with other existing abilities does a lot to even out the power spike you're worried about.
i was not saying that it was cruel to the abillities, i said it might be cruel to the player/ the class since at the very least evasion is rather integral to its identity as a class, it might feel weird to put it at a later level
And my stance was not "getting diamond soul + stillness of mind + evasion at 7th level would cause a significant power spike", it was "getting diamond soul alone at 7th level will likely cause a significant power spike" since the feature on its own is so powerful, yes it may have the same, lower or higher bonus to each save compared to the paladin but the ability to reroll the failed save is rather potent since it makes you significantly less likely to fail an important saving throw assuming you manage abillities properly, and means that when you finally do get evasion it will be more potent than what it was before, simply put compared to the features gained at adjacent levels it would stick out quite a bit
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I don't really connect with the idea of being cruel to monk abilities. They're game features, not sentient beings. I didn't want to just get rid of them, and putting them at 8 and 9 in conjunction with other existing abilities does a lot to even out the power spike you're worried about.
i was not saying that it was cruel to the abillities, i said it might be cruel to the player/ the class since at the very least evasion is rather integral to its identity as a class, it might feel weird to put it at a later level
And my stance was not "getting diamond soul + stillness of mind + evasion at 7th level would cause a significant power spike", it was "getting diamond soul alone at 7th level will likely cause a significant power spike" since the feature on its own is so powerful, yes it may have the same, lower or higher bonus to each save compared to the paladin but the ability to reroll the failed save is rather potent since it makes you significantly less likely to fail an important saving throw assuming you manage abillities properly, and means that when you finally do get evasion it will be more potent than what it was before, simply put compared to the features gained at adjacent levels it would stick out quite a bit
this was why I said it feels like most of the Monk specific abilities felt like they needed to go down a few levels to the previous one or group of them. Diamond Soul would come online at 10th if it was done that way. Evasion depending on how you look at it would be 5th or 7th. 7th if you see it as the multiclass feature as it is. 5th if you see it as something wholely monk despite some other classes getting it. 10th doesn't feel like too soon or too much of a jump to be getting a power like it and in previous editions 11th level is where you got the older versions of what Diamond Soul does overall. And it would be fittingly useful to all of those modules and linked modules where the stories end about 13th level rather than being just out of reach of those pre-written campaigns.
ArtificeMeal I understood what your concerns are for the power spike. I think it's as simple as not agreeing on power level issues. One solution (if someone likes this layout but agrees it's too powerful) could be to separate the two functions of the ability, and to put the ability to reroll failed saves at a later level.
And I guess I see where you're coming from with making players wait longer. But I mean, it's not like they aren't getting a piece of candy when they hit level 7 with Diamond Soul. I think level 9 is still early enough to feel like a significant part of the Monk's kit.
I think it's as simple as not agreeing on power level issues.
my problem has less to do with the class itself becomming OP with this shift (even if that is indeed a concern), but more to do with how it is radically more potent cus its like
5th level: i get to deny my enemies so many actions!
6th level: a subclass feature, meh
7th level: HOLY SHIT THAT'S AWESOME I GET TO NEVER DIE?!
8th level: asi, meh at least i get this still mind thingie
9th level: rather powerful exploration feature and evasion for further impossibillity to die
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The barbarian with a tinge of MADness? Yeah now let's talk about the Totem Warrior Barbarian and how it doesn't care about its AC at all.
Does anyone talking about low AC barbarians actually play one? At higher levels? Specifically a bear totem? Because I do and I can tell you right now having resistance to all damage and a healthy stack of HP count for nothing when [i]every[/i] hit lands. That 224 pool that I have at level 18 with a 15 AC goes down [i]fast[/i], some would say too fast to be the tank I'm standing there doing. A barb absolutely cannot ignore their dex and settle with a low one, they need it to be in the 16-18 range minimum which when you're pumping up con and str simply isn't viable. Something has to give and yes it is still 100% MAD.
The barbarian with a tinge of MADness? Yeah now let's talk about the Totem Warrior Barbarian and how it doesn't care about its AC at all.
Does anyone talking about low AC barbarians actually play one? At higher levels? Specifically a bear totem? Because I do and I can tell you right now having resistance to all damage and a healthy stack of HP count for nothing when [i]every[/i] hit lands. That 224 pool that I have at level 18 with a 15 AC goes down [i]fast[/i], some would say too fast to be the tank I'm standing there doing. A barb absolutely cannot ignore their dex and settle with a low one, they need it to be in the 16-18 range minimum which when you're pumping up con and str simply isn't viable. Something has to give and yes it is still 100% MAD.
Later on I think that might be true but I'm the realm of actual play it's less likely to be an issue.
With DEX 14 and medium armor you cap at 17 AC with half plate which is where a DEX fighter will Max as well so it's not a huge issue.
They can also use a shield and hit 19 AC if really needed.
The barbarian with a tinge of MADness? Yeah now let's talk about the Totem Warrior Barbarian and how it doesn't care about its AC at all.
Does anyone talking about low AC barbarians actually play one? At higher levels? Specifically a bear totem? Because I do and I can tell you right now having resistance to all damage and a healthy stack of HP count for nothing when [i]every[/i] hit lands. That 224 pool that I have at level 18 with a 15 AC goes down [i]fast[/i], some would say too fast to be the tank I'm standing there doing. A barb absolutely cannot ignore their dex and settle with a low one, they need it to be in the 16-18 range minimum which when you're pumping up con and str simply isn't viable. Something has to give and yes it is still 100% MAD.
Later on I think that might be true but I'm the realm of actual play it's less likely to be an issue.
With DEX 14 and medium armor you cap at 17 AC with half plate which is where a DEX fighter will Max as well so it's not a huge issue.
They can also use a shield and hit 19 AC if really needed.
AT level 18 your into the levels where things aren't completely balanced anymore. They did not put a lot of work into balancing Tier 4 and Max Level stuff. There is some but nothing like what they put into the first 3 tiers of play. Even High AC starts meaning less for many in that range and healers start having a lot more work to do and having to rely on high level healing spells. But even ignoring all that...
What system did you use to build your character Midnight? Because with standard array you can easily do your 14 and your 15 in strength and con, even boost those higher with your race pick You still end up with at a 13 in dex. If not higher depending on various factors which means you can easily reach an AC of 16 at 18th level by maxing out Con. If you did point buy it's even easier. You can actually have 2 14's and a 15 with point buy while only having a single 8 and 2 10's spread over your mentals. So if you just maxed out Con with ASI's you'd already have a 16-17 AC. Rolling is a bit more random and could make it a bit harder to cover dex Or you could always choose to put that third highest stat elsewhere of course. So it gives us context to know.
Or the barbarian is completely free to move off of their alternate AC back onto traditional AC with magical medium armor's that they are not going to have a lot of competition for and get even higher AC. So that 17 AC mentioned by Optimus can end up being something more like 19 or 20 even before adding on a shield.
This ability to just put on armor is an advantage that the Monk just does not have. That is all purely in their stats while the Barbarian actually has a choice even if they player of said Barbarian often forgets that it exists. In Fact for Barbarians with Dex that is never really over 11 or 12, They can still always take the medium armor even without potentially using it to it's maximum AC and potentially have equal or better AC than using their Alternate AC feature for the bulk if not the whole of their adventuring career.
I think you are exaggerating the difference between a monk and a barbarian or paladin.
I really am not. Practically everyone in the game will agree with me that Paladins are one of the most powerful classes in the game, and Monks are one of the least satisfying to play. Barbarians are commonly regarded as an "effective, yet boring" class, while Monks effectiveness is very much dependent on 3 ability scores.
I can see your point that a barbarian can wear medium armor and therefore can be viable with moderate dex.
They can be viable with next-to-no dex. They can be viable with next-to-no con. They can be viable with next-to-no dex and next-to-no con at the same time. However, monks cannot be viable with next-to-no con and next-to-no wis. They are much less viable with a lower score in either one of those features than a barbarian is with a very low score in one of their "Big Three" scores.
You say a paladin is MAD to balance them out but give no reason why they are more MAD than a monk (which you claim to be much much more mad than other melee classes)
They're not "more mad than a monk", they are at the very least "almost as MAD as a monk". They do need a good Strength or Dexterity score, and need a decent Charisma score, but in no way need as high of a Charisma score as a Monk needs for their Wisdom score.
Most subclasses of monks only need Wisdom for AC and stunning strike I am not saying it is not a primary stat but it is more important than con on a barb.
No. All monk subclasses need Wisdom and Dexterity for their AC. They depend on it. Stunning Strike is a core feature for monks, their combat effectiveness depends on it, and thus depends even more on WIS.
A moderate con monk (not primary but not dumped say a +1 I agree -1 con for a monk like any other class is not viable) should not be a frontline character, they are a skirmisher in a similar to a melee rogue. They run in attack and run out again. There are pros and cons between the two, at higher levels monks have a greater speed so move further, generally speaking the monk needs ot use a resource and a bonus action to disengage where a rogue uses just a bonus action , though a successful stun means no op attacks (swashbucklers and open hand monks develop this further).
That forces them to play a certain way. Barbarians don't need to change their playstyle in order to be viable in melee combat with low stats for DEX/CON, but monks do if they have a low WIS/CON score. Though most monsters focus on melee combat, it is not uncommon to see monsters with powerful ranged attacks and features. Ranged attacks and features are much more common than a monster feature that a barbarian would be vulnerable to (normally restraining/controlling effects).
Also, they have to use KI in order to dash as a bonus action, which takes away their ability to use their bonus action to attack.
"A mage is the archnemesis of any monkcharacter with a low HP maximum". A wizard or sorcerer has less HP than a monk, will have lower wisdom and dex than the monk,so the monk is more likely to succeed against nearly all spells requiring saving throws than the wizard/sorcerer. If they have cast mage armor AC is similar (but at level one that is a significant resource). As they gasin levels the monk will gain AC through ASIs get evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body and diamond soul all of which make them more resistent to those spell attacks. All mages gewt to protect them from enemy mage attacks are shield, absorb element and counterspell all of which require the spell to be prepared / known
No, monks are much more vulnerable to mages than most other classes. A wizard or sorcerer has access to Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield. Wizards have proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, and Sorcerers have proficiency in Constitution scores. Their AC when they use Shield can be way, way higher than a monks. Diamond Body comes at a very late level, too.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk. Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad. The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
I think you are exaggerating the difference between a monk and a barbarian or paladin.
I really am not. Practically everyone in the game will agree with me that Paladins are one of the most powerful classes in the game, and Monks are one of the least satisfying to play. Barbarians are commonly regarded as an "effective, yet boring" class, while Monks effectiveness is very much dependent on 3 ability scores.
I can see your point that a barbarian can wear medium armor and therefore can be viable with moderate dex.
They can be viable with next-to-no dex. They can be viable with next-to-no con. They can be viable with next-to-no dex and next-to-no con at the same time. However, monks cannot be viable with next-to-no con and next-to-no wis. They are much less viable with a lower score in either one of those features than a barbarian is with a very low score in one of their "Big Three" scores.
You say a paladin is MAD to balance them out but give no reason why they are more MAD than a monk (which you claim to be much much more mad than other melee classes)
They're not "more mad than a monk", they are at the very least "almost as MAD as a monk". They do need a good Strength or Dexterity score, and need a decent Charisma score, but in no way need as high of a Charisma score as a Monk needs for their Wisdom score.
Most subclasses of monks only need Wisdom for AC and stunning strike I am not saying it is not a primary stat but it is more important than con on a barb.
No. All monk subclasses need Wisdom and Dexterity for their AC. They depend on it. Stunning Strike is a core feature for monks, their combat effectiveness depends on it, and thus depends even more on WIS.
A moderate con monk (not primary but not dumped say a +1 I agree -1 con for a monk like any other class is not viable) should not be a frontline character, they are a skirmisher in a similar to a melee rogue. They run in attack and run out again. There are pros and cons between the two, at higher levels monks have a greater speed so move further, generally speaking the monk needs ot use a resource and a bonus action to disengage where a rogue uses just a bonus action , though a successful stun means no op attacks (swashbucklers and open hand monks develop this further).
That forces them to play a certain way. Barbarians don't need to change their playstyle in order to be viable in melee combat with low stats for DEX/CON, but monks do if they have a low WIS/CON score. Though most monsters focus on melee combat, it is not uncommon to see monsters with powerful ranged attacks and features. Ranged attacks and features are much more common than a monster feature that a barbarian would be vulnerable to (normally restraining/controlling effects).
Also, they have to use KI in order to dash as a bonus action, which takes away their ability to use their bonus action to attack.
"A mage is the archnemesis of any monkcharacter with a low HP maximum". A wizard or sorcerer has less HP than a monk, will have lower wisdom and dex than the monk,so the monk is more likely to succeed against nearly all spells requiring saving throws than the wizard/sorcerer. If they have cast mage armor AC is similar (but at level one that is a significant resource). As they gasin levels the monk will gain AC through ASIs get evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body and diamond soul all of which make them more resistent to those spell attacks. All mages gewt to protect them from enemy mage attacks are shield, absorb element and counterspell all of which require the spell to be prepared / known
No, monks are much more vulnerable to mages than most other classes. A wizard or sorcerer has access to Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield. Wizards have proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, and Sorcerers have proficiency in Constitution scores. Their AC when they use Shield can be way, way higher than a monks. Diamond Body comes at a very late level, too.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk. Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad. The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
For me thats what actually boils down my issue with monk: It's exceedingly rare that stunning strike isn't your best option most of the time.
People say its good to dodge as BA...but its better to just shut down the creature altogether than just have disadvantage to hit you
People say its good to dash and run up walls to avoid things....but its better to just stun something and then punch it two more times to kill it faster.
Ultimately its greatest weapon is TOO good and you basically have to use it as much as possible, especially later on when CON saves get so good you have to spam to get it to work at all.
Monks are not more vulnerable to mages than any other class. In fact in some ways the mages is actually much more vulnerable to the monk. The monk can actually force more saves than most other classes can actually do by default and has the speed to actually cover the distance to the mage in way few classes can do, at high level actually being able to cover as much as twice the distance as even the rogue.
Shield is resource intensive and doesn't dramatically effect the monks ability to hit the mage at higher levels and the mages AC is actually often lower by 2 to 3 points with a maximum capability purely through mage armor that is lower than the monks before even considering protective magical items which they can both use.
Counterspell and Dispel magic do nothing against most monks because they don't use magic and of the few that do they still tend to have a lot about their kits that does not. And for the matter of any dex based aoe the mage might use they can save to take no damage from it at all with Dex being a save that they not only prioritize stat wise but also have proficiency in, and they gain proficiency in all saves by the 4th tier of play. Giving them a decent chance of resisting most any spell cast but a strong chance of resisting all of the major spells that could be a problem. On top of that if any spell actually inflicts charmed or frightened by level 7 even if they fail the saves against those they can just break it giving limited effect at best to those spells. And things like cloud kill are ineffective by level 10.
And this is just your average monk. Probably spent most of their ASI's on stats and didn't bother to build to actually kill mages. Should they even just pick up mage slayer they are going to be hitting you every time you try to cast a spell. Have an easier time resisting your spells and make it harder for you to keep concentration. If they pick up Sentinel to go along with it not only are they going to be a tougher opponent but they will also have a decent chance of making sure that you cannot get out of their reach without blowing even more spell slots on things that don't actually attack them.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk.
I've played a monk (as a DMPC) from levels 6 to level 15. I have played alongside another monk in a 2 on 1 campaign from level 1 to level 9. I am well aware of the mechanics of the monk class and how it functions in combat.
Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad.
Of course it's subjective, but I said that is was "one of the least satisfying classes to play in 5e", not "theleast satisfying class to play". There's a difference. Whether or not you intended it, you just did a Strawman argument.
I did not state that as a fact, but as an opinion from my own experience and observations in my years of playing D&D.
However, I do have facts to back up my opinion. It is one of the least played classes in the game, and also is very restrictive to playstyle. Up until Tasha's, as a monk, you were basically required to use Dexterity and only Dexterity for your attack modifier. Every monk plays basically the same, with exceptions of a couple subclasses (Astral Self, Kensei, and kind of Sun Soul/Four Elements).
The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
I didn't claim that it was the paladin, but it is important to compare classes to other classes if you want some semblance of what is well-balanced/typical. Monks shouldn't be paladins, but they are comparable to them. They're both frontline melee fighters that use a secondary pool of resources to increase their power in combat. However, Paladins use this secondary resource pool to give them huge nova surges, while Monks use it for basically everything that isn't just attacking others.
The monk is one of the most MAD classes in the game, and not even for a good reason. Paladins are MAD to balance them out, Monks are MAD because WotC tried something new and it didn't work that well.
Also, numbers are important to the balance of the game. There is no way to balance any features without numbers. Otherwise, it would be chaos. DPR is important to characters that are supposed to be damaging characters, which monks are very much supposed to be.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
You came in late to the conversation. I mentioned counterspell/dispel magic/shield to point out boons that casters have over fighting other casters that monks don't get.
Stunning Strike will only kill the wizard if the other members of the party (paladin) contributes. There's no way a Monk is going to take down a mage or diviner in one turn, even with Stunning Strike on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you are exaggerating the difference between a monk and a barbarian or paladin.
I really am not. Practically everyone in the game will agree with me that Paladins are one of the most powerful classes in the game, and Monks are one of the least satisfying to play. Barbarians are commonly regarded as an "effective, yet boring" class, while Monks effectiveness is very much dependent on 3 ability scores.
I can see your point that a barbarian can wear medium armor and therefore can be viable with moderate dex.
They can be viable with next-to-no dex. They can be viable with next-to-no con. They can be viable with next-to-no dex and next-to-no con at the same time. However, monks cannot be viable with next-to-no con and next-to-no wis. They are much less viable with a lower score in either one of those features than a barbarian is with a very low score in one of their "Big Three" scores.
You say a paladin is MAD to balance them out but give no reason why they are more MAD than a monk (which you claim to be much much more mad than other melee classes)
They're not "more mad than a monk", they are at the very least "almost as MAD as a monk". They do need a good Strength or Dexterity score, and need a decent Charisma score, but in no way need as high of a Charisma score as a Monk needs for their Wisdom score.
Most subclasses of monks only need Wisdom for AC and stunning strike I am not saying it is not a primary stat but it is more important than con on a barb.
No. All monk subclasses need Wisdom and Dexterity for their AC. They depend on it. Stunning Strike is a core feature for monks, their combat effectiveness depends on it, and thus depends even more on WIS.
A moderate con monk (not primary but not dumped say a +1 I agree -1 con for a monk like any other class is not viable) should not be a frontline character, they are a skirmisher in a similar to a melee rogue. They run in attack and run out again. There are pros and cons between the two, at higher levels monks have a greater speed so move further, generally speaking the monk needs ot use a resource and a bonus action to disengage where a rogue uses just a bonus action , though a successful stun means no op attacks (swashbucklers and open hand monks develop this further).
That forces them to play a certain way. Barbarians don't need to change their playstyle in order to be viable in melee combat with low stats for DEX/CON, but monks do if they have a low WIS/CON score. Though most monsters focus on melee combat, it is not uncommon to see monsters with powerful ranged attacks and features. Ranged attacks and features are much more common than a monster feature that a barbarian would be vulnerable to (normally restraining/controlling effects).
Also, they have to use KI in order to dash as a bonus action, which takes away their ability to use their bonus action to attack.
"A mage is the archnemesis of any monkcharacter with a low HP maximum". A wizard or sorcerer has less HP than a monk, will have lower wisdom and dex than the monk,so the monk is more likely to succeed against nearly all spells requiring saving throws than the wizard/sorcerer. If they have cast mage armor AC is similar (but at level one that is a significant resource). As they gasin levels the monk will gain AC through ASIs get evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body and diamond soul all of which make them more resistent to those spell attacks. All mages gewt to protect them from enemy mage attacks are shield, absorb element and counterspell all of which require the spell to be prepared / known
No, monks are much more vulnerable to mages than most other classes. A wizard or sorcerer has access to Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield. Wizards have proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, and Sorcerers have proficiency in Constitution scores. Their AC when they use Shield can be way, way higher than a monks. Diamond Body comes at a very late level, too.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk. Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad. The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
For me thats what actually boils down my issue with monk: It's exceedingly rare that stunning strike isn't your best option most of the time.
People say its good to dodge as BA...but its better to just shut down the creature altogether than just have disadvantage to hit you
People say its good to dash and run up walls to avoid things....but its better to just stun something and then punch it two more times to kill it faster.
Ultimately its greatest weapon is TOO good and you basically have to use it as much as possible, especially later on when CON saves get so good you have to spam to get it to work at all.
I honestly agree, constitution should not have been the save for stunning strike, it is too much of a hassle against many high level enemies. The monk struggles with having many ki features to have to choose from, often settling for the potential benefits from stunning strike. Hence why new monk subclasses (way of mercy, astral self, ascendant dragon) all focus on using less ki for subclass abilities. Wotc has finally realized that monks are often too spread out among mediocre ki features that burn ki. It's the reason why so many monk players have to rely on the Mobile feat. Monks would also have been better with d10 hit die.
I love the class but I can accept that it has a few key flaws in its design.
I think you are exaggerating the difference between a monk and a barbarian or paladin.
I really am not. Practically everyone in the game will agree with me that Paladins are one of the most powerful classes in the game, and Monks are one of the least satisfying to play. Barbarians are commonly regarded as an "effective, yet boring" class, while Monks effectiveness is very much dependent on 3 ability scores.
I can see your point that a barbarian can wear medium armor and therefore can be viable with moderate dex.
They can be viable with next-to-no dex. They can be viable with next-to-no con. They can be viable with next-to-no dex and next-to-no con at the same time. However, monks cannot be viable with next-to-no con and next-to-no wis. They are much less viable with a lower score in either one of those features than a barbarian is with a very low score in one of their "Big Three" scores.
You say a paladin is MAD to balance them out but give no reason why they are more MAD than a monk (which you claim to be much much more mad than other melee classes)
They're not "more mad than a monk", they are at the very least "almost as MAD as a monk". They do need a good Strength or Dexterity score, and need a decent Charisma score, but in no way need as high of a Charisma score as a Monk needs for their Wisdom score.
Most subclasses of monks only need Wisdom for AC and stunning strike I am not saying it is not a primary stat but it is more important than con on a barb.
No. All monk subclasses need Wisdom and Dexterity for their AC. They depend on it. Stunning Strike is a core feature for monks, their combat effectiveness depends on it, and thus depends even more on WIS.
A moderate con monk (not primary but not dumped say a +1 I agree -1 con for a monk like any other class is not viable) should not be a frontline character, they are a skirmisher in a similar to a melee rogue. They run in attack and run out again. There are pros and cons between the two, at higher levels monks have a greater speed so move further, generally speaking the monk needs ot use a resource and a bonus action to disengage where a rogue uses just a bonus action , though a successful stun means no op attacks (swashbucklers and open hand monks develop this further).
That forces them to play a certain way. Barbarians don't need to change their playstyle in order to be viable in melee combat with low stats for DEX/CON, but monks do if they have a low WIS/CON score. Though most monsters focus on melee combat, it is not uncommon to see monsters with powerful ranged attacks and features. Ranged attacks and features are much more common than a monster feature that a barbarian would be vulnerable to (normally restraining/controlling effects).
Also, they have to use KI in order to dash as a bonus action, which takes away their ability to use their bonus action to attack.
"A mage is the archnemesis of any monkcharacter with a low HP maximum". A wizard or sorcerer has less HP than a monk, will have lower wisdom and dex than the monk,so the monk is more likely to succeed against nearly all spells requiring saving throws than the wizard/sorcerer. If they have cast mage armor AC is similar (but at level one that is a significant resource). As they gasin levels the monk will gain AC through ASIs get evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body and diamond soul all of which make them more resistent to those spell attacks. All mages gewt to protect them from enemy mage attacks are shield, absorb element and counterspell all of which require the spell to be prepared / known
No, monks are much more vulnerable to mages than most other classes. A wizard or sorcerer has access to Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Shield. Wizards have proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, and Sorcerers have proficiency in Constitution scores. Their AC when they use Shield can be way, way higher than a monks. Diamond Body comes at a very late level, too.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk. Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad. The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
For me thats what actually boils down my issue with monk: It's exceedingly rare that stunning strike isn't your best option most of the time.
People say its good to dodge as BA...but its better to just shut down the creature altogether than just have disadvantage to hit you
People say its good to dash and run up walls to avoid things....but its better to just stun something and then punch it two more times to kill it faster.
Ultimately its greatest weapon is TOO good and you basically have to use it as much as possible, especially later on when CON saves get so good you have to spam to get it to work at all.
I honestly agree, constitution should not have been the save for stunning strike, it is too much of a hassle against many high level enemies. The monk struggles with having many ki features to have to choose from, often settling for the potential benefits from stunning strike. Hence why new monk subclasses (way of mercy, astral self, ascendant dragon) all focus on using less ki for subclass abilities. Wotc has finally realized that monks are often too spread out among mediocre ki features that burn ki. It's the reason why so many monk players have to rely on the Mobile feat. Monks would also have been better with d10 hit die.
I love the class but I can accept that it has a few key flaws in its design.
As a point of order. A lot of monk players rely on the mobile feat because a lot of martial players rely on the mobile feat. There are other ways for the monk to do things similar to the mobile feat without actually taking it.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk.
I've played a monk (as a DMPC) from levels 6 to level 15. I have played alongside another monk in a 2 on 1 campaign from level 1 to level 9. I am well aware of the mechanics of the monk class and how it functions in combat.
Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad.
Of course it's subjective, but I said that is was "one of the least satisfying classes to play in 5e", not "theleast satisfying class to play". There's a difference. Whether or not you intended it, you just did a Strawman argument.
I did not state that as a fact, but as an opinion from my own experience and observations in my years of playing D&D.
However, I do have facts to back up my opinion. It is one of the least played classes in the game, and also is very restrictive to playstyle. Up until Tasha's, as a monk, you were basically required to use Dexterity and only Dexterity for your attack modifier. Every monk plays basically the same, with exceptions of a couple subclasses (Astral Self, Kensei, and kind of Sun Soul/Four Elements).
The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
I didn't claim that it was the paladin, but it is important to compare classes to other classes if you want some semblance of what is well-balanced/typical. Monks shouldn't be paladins, but they are comparable to them. They're both frontline melee fighters that use a secondary pool of resources to increase their power in combat. However, Paladins use this secondary resource pool to give them huge nova surges, while Monks use it for basically everything that isn't just attacking others.
The monk is one of the most MAD classes in the game, and not even for a good reason. Paladins are MAD to balance them out, Monks are MAD because WotC tried something new and it didn't work that well.
Also, numbers are important to the balance of the game. There is no way to balance any features without numbers. Otherwise, it would be chaos. DPR is important to characters that are supposed to be damaging characters, which monks are very much supposed to be.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
You came in late to the conversation. I mentioned counterspell/dispel magic/shield to point out boons that casters have over fighting other casters that monks don't get.
Stunning Strike will only kill the wizard if the other members of the party (paladin) contributes. There's no way a Monk is going to take down a mage or diviner in one turn, even with Stunning Strike on them.
The beauty of stunning strike is that they no longer have to take down that caster in one turn. They have as many turns as they can keep the creature stunned to do it. And if they can hit the majority or even all of their attacks they can actually do a lot of damage. Even without using flurry of blows or anything other than their base attacks at high level is capable of a max of 45 damage, and an average of about 33 just by having the hits connect. Should they have ways to increase that damage, of which there are several, that number just goes up from there. Flurry of blows adding another 11 average with a max of 15. Eldritch claw averaging 9 or 12 depending on if your using Flurry of Blows or not. Which can net you a max damage 84, and an average damage of 56 just by using both of those two things. your average wizard is likely sitting around 100 to 120 hitpoints. maybe higher if they really focused on con rather than simply getting advantage or proficiency in Con to help their concentration saves. Which Keep in mind War Caster does not help on saves against Stunning. But there is a decent chance that before such a monk runs out of Ki if they have a max Wisdom of 20 so that they have a Con save of 19 on their stunning strikes that they will be able to single handedly take out the mage on their own.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk.
I've played a monk (as a DMPC) from levels 6 to level 15. I have played alongside another monk in a 2 on 1 campaign from level 1 to level 9. I am well aware of the mechanics of the monk class and how it functions in combat.
Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad.
Of course it's subjective, but I said that is was "one of the least satisfying classes to play in 5e", not "theleast satisfying class to play". There's a difference. Whether or not you intended it, you just did a Strawman argument.
I did not state that as a fact, but as an opinion from my own experience and observations in my years of playing D&D.
However, I do have facts to back up my opinion. It is one of the least played classes in the game, and also is very restrictive to playstyle. Up until Tasha's, as a monk, you were basically required to use Dexterity and only Dexterity for your attack modifier. Every monk plays basically the same, with exceptions of a couple subclasses (Astral Self, Kensei, and kind of Sun Soul/Four Elements).
The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
I didn't claim that it was the paladin, but it is important to compare classes to other classes if you want some semblance of what is well-balanced/typical. Monks shouldn't be paladins, but they are comparable to them. They're both frontline melee fighters that use a secondary pool of resources to increase their power in combat. However, Paladins use this secondary resource pool to give them huge nova surges, while Monks use it for basically everything that isn't just attacking others.
The monk is one of the most MAD classes in the game, and not even for a good reason. Paladins are MAD to balance them out, Monks are MAD because WotC tried something new and it didn't work that well.
Also, numbers are important to the balance of the game. There is no way to balance any features without numbers. Otherwise, it would be chaos. DPR is important to characters that are supposed to be damaging characters, which monks are very much supposed to be.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
You came in late to the conversation. I mentioned counterspell/dispel magic/shield to point out boons that casters have over fighting other casters that monks don't get.
Stunning Strike will only kill the wizard if the other members of the party (paladin) contributes. There's no way a Monk is going to take down a mage or diviner in one turn, even with Stunning Strike on them.
If you played as a DMPC, I doubt you had the time to focus solely on the character and having more fun with that rather than worrying about how mechanically viable the class is. It was my mistake yes, but you admit that what you're saying is an opinion. Not only that but calling it "one of the least satisfying classes to play" doesn't change much, because that is not only subjective but generally untrue from what I've seen? Saying every monk plays the same is just false, the game has so many ways to customize playstyle and it all depends on the player. Also that survey doesn't prove that the monk is one of the least satisfying classes to play???
There are so many reasons why the monk could be one of the least played classes. One of the biggest issues with that survey is that the monk is only behind by a few thousand compared to most of the other classes. Plus It still beats the bard, sorcerer, and druid. And I doubt you'd argue that people wouldn't find those classes satisfying. I'd attribute those numbers more to convenience and how easily recognizable the archetypes of those classes are. A fighter is not only simple to play, but it is the most malleable class thematically. So it's no surprise that it takes the lead. Also, the number of players =/= how much fun those players are having with the monk.
While I agree that monks should be less MAD, the monk has consistent damage (which people often downplay in comparison to any other class) and while it doesn't have smiting levels of power, does it really need that? That is why different classes exist, if you want damage just be a paladin. The monk has many features and abilities the paladin never gets. Empty body, Deflect Missiles, 4 attacks, +30 movement speed, Dodge/Disengage as a bonus, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, Evasion, Diamond Soul, etc. And while you could argue that other classes have similar stuff, that logic applies to every class. The monk will look weaker if you compare it to every other martial class at once, but if you compare them 1-1, the pros and cons for each become apparent.
Players have different priorities when choosing classes, that is why it is a choice. Should things be balanced going forward? yes, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be good at the same things in the same ways.
Also the monk doesn't need to take the caster down in one turn with a stunning strike, the point is that with advantage on all attacks, the monk's chance of a crit is significantly higher. Meaning a potentially higher damage output which would put the caster in serious danger in one round. This would also ruin any concentration spells that the caster is using.
The MAD nature is actually one of the major reasons that monks get less play rather than the satisfaction of playing one. many people want to specialize more in their builds and only focus on one or two things and not a bunch of different stats. The Druid sees a lack of play for a similar reason but in it's style rather than it's stats. They just have So much that they can do that they have issues focusing on what they should even do with a Druid or how to match the type of character they make to the style of play they wish to engage in. But it's through Dirth of Features rather than delicate balance of multiple attributes.
If you played as a DMPC, I doubt you had the time to focus solely on the character and having more fun with that rather than worrying about how mechanically viable the class is.
BS. Absolute BS. You don't know me, so don't come into this thread and say "You haven't even play the class!" and then when I have told you that I have played the class and alongside one, don't tell me "that's not actually playing it!!!"
My DMPCs are added to be actual characters that participate in the campaign. It was in a one-on-one campaign that had 5 DMPCs over the course of the campaign (not at once, only 3 at a time, replacing retired/dead ones throughout the campaign). The DMPCs had fully fleshed out backstories, personalities, goals, motivations, and everything else a PC needs, including the Monk.
This is the whole "Powergamers/Minmaxers can't roleplay!" claim that is absolutely untrue. The Monk DMPC was cool, fun, and had an interesting personality and character arc. My grievances with the class have nothing to do with the roleplay potential, but everything to do with how they are played in the game. I played it for about 10 levels of play, for about a 2 year campaign.
Don't tell me that my experiences are invalid because I was at the DM at the time of playing the character. I experienced all of the play of the character and know its strengths and faults as well as anyone else that has played it for 10 levels.
(The rest will be in a later post. This is more important than the rest and deserves its own post.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It was my mistake yes, but you admit that what you're saying is an opinion.
And yours isn't an opinion? Everything in this thread is an opinion. Stating that a position is an opinion doesn't invalidate it. Something being an opinion doesn't make it untrue.
Not only that but calling it "one of the least satisfying classes to play" doesn't change much, because that is not only subjective but generally untrue from what I've seen? Saying every monk plays the same is just false, the game has so many ways to customize playstyle and it all depends on the player.
It does change much, as you claimed that I said something that I didn't say. That's a strawman. "One of the least" and "the least" is a big difference. It's like claiming that because someone said "Shih-Tzus are one of the smallest dog breeds" is them saying "Shih-Tzus are the smallest dog breed ever". There is a major difference.
Also, I didn't say that "every monk plays the same", that's another strawman. I said "Every monk plays basically the same [way], with some exceptions . . ." and you're claiming that I made a blanket statement when I purposefully made a statement to avoid a definite generalization.
It depends on the player, but for a base monk and subclasses that play like base monks (non Kensei/Astral Self, and the two I mentioned in my previous post), the typical best weapon to use is a Spear or Quarterstaff. There is quite literally no better option for characters in terms of weapons than the Spear (with very few and very campaign-dependent exceptions).
Most general monks will be using a quarterstaff/spear with two hands and a bonus action to Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows.
Kensei Monks will probably use a d8 versatile weapon or longbow, and their playstyle depending on what weapon they choose (Melee Kensei use Flurry of Blows/Unarmed Strike as a bonus action while Ranged Kensei typically use a bonus action for Kensei's Shot).
Astral Self Monks tend to focus on maxing out Wisdom, using Unarmed Strikes in most cases, not weapons. If you somehow have Shillelagh, this may be different, but this is the general play to be expected.
Sun Soul Monks generally use their Radiant Sun Bolt for all their attacks when they have the opportunity, IME.
IME, Four Elements Monks spend most of their attacks using Quarterstaffs/Spears, but typically use Fangs of the Fire Snake when they want to. Other turns they use actions casting a spell and attack as a bonus action (through the Tasha's Rule).
Also that survey doesn't prove that the monk is one of the least satisfying classes to play??? There are so many reasons why the monk could be one of the least played classes.
It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. One would imagine that the more satisfying classes to play would end up being played the most. The monk is one of the least played classes, so this would suggest that it is one of the least satisfying classes to play.
Yes, there may be other factors influencing how often a class is played, but that does not discredit that one major factors of choosing a character would depend on how "satisfying" it is to play it.
One of the biggest issues with that survey is that the monk is only behind by a few thousand compared to most of the other classes. Plus It still beats the bard, sorcerer, and druid. And I doubt you'd argue that people wouldn't find those classes satisfying. I'd attribute those numbers more to convenience and how easily recognizable the archetypes of those classes are. A fighter is not only simple to play, but it is the most malleable class thematically. So it's no surprise that it takes the lead. Also, the number of players =/= how much fun those players are having with the monk.
"Behind by a few thousand compared to most other classes" is a major difference. Did you see how many people that chart was representing? It's just over 100,000, so any difference of about a thousand is a 1% difference in how often they're played. According to this source, that would mean that the Monk is played much less in percentage than the majority of other classes.
While I agree that monks should be less MAD, the monk has consistent damage (which people often downplay in comparison to any other class) and while it doesn't have smiting levels of power, does it really need that? That is why different classes exist, if you want damage just be a paladin. The monk has many features and abilities the paladin never gets. Empty body, Deflect Missiles, 4 attacks, +30 movement speed, Dodge/Disengage as a bonus, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, Evasion, Diamond Soul, etc. And while you could argue that other classes have similar stuff, that logic applies to every class. The monk will look weaker if you compare it to every other martial class at once, but if you compare them 1-1, the pros and cons for each become apparent.
Players have different priorities when choosing classes, that is why it is a choice. Should things be balanced going forward? yes, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be good at the same things in the same ways.
I didn't say they didn't need smiting levels of power. Rangers and Barbarians don't have smiting levels of damage, but they make up for the lack of nova for their long term sustained damage (Hunter's Mark and Rage, respectively). However, Monks are a strange, clunky mix of Nova and Sustained damage. They can "mini-nova" with Flurry of Blows, but it burns up their main resource (Ki), and isn't really a "nova" power. It doesn't need Smite levels of damage, but it really should determine if it is a Nova damager or Sustained damager class. It's currently in a limbo that also requires them to give up their action economy and main resource pool in order to deal damage on par with fighters/barbarians/rogues.
The problem with the monk class isn't that it has too little, it's that it has too much. It can't decide its theme while also pushing you into a very specific niche of Martial Artist. Strength based monks are practically unplayable (unless you rolled super well for your stats). They incentivize you a ton to max out Dexterity and Wisdom, while also normally requiring good Constitution. They try to be frontline warriors, skirmishers, quasi-magical boxers, and stereotypical Crouching Tiger-Green Dragon fighters all at once. It's just clunky and poorly executed. (Again, my opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong.)
Also the monk doesn't need to take the caster down in one turn with a stunning strike, the point is that with advantage on all attacks, the monk's chance of a crit is significantly higher. Meaning a potentially higher damage output which would put the caster in serious danger in one round. This would also ruin any concentration spells that the caster is using.
Critting for monks is laughably underwhelming. Good job! You rolled a critical hit! That lets you deal an extra 1d4 damage on this one attack! (Scales a bit as you level, but comparatively worse than a Greataxe and most other weapons.) My point is, the crit will be a good bonus, but monks are almost never using Stunning Strike to crit fish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It was my mistake yes, but you admit that what you're saying is an opinion.
And yours isn't an opinion? Everything in this thread is an opinion. Stating that a position is an opinion doesn't invalidate it. Something being an opinion doesn't make it untrue.
Not only that but calling it "one of the least satisfying classes to play" doesn't change much, because that is not only subjective but generally untrue from what I've seen? Saying every monk plays the same is just false, the game has so many ways to customize playstyle and it all depends on the player.
It does change much, as you claimed that I said something that I didn't say. That's a strawman. "One of the least" and "the least" is a big difference. It's like claiming that because someone said "Shih-Tzus are one of the smallest dog breeds" is them saying "Shih-Tzus are the smallest dog breed ever". There is a major difference.
Also, I didn't say that "every monk plays the same", that's another strawman. I said "Every monk plays basically the same [way], with some exceptions . . ." and you're claiming that I made a blanket statement when I purposefully made a statement to avoid a definite generalization.
It depends on the player, but for a base monk and subclasses that play like base monks (non Kensei/Astral Self, and the two I mentioned in my previous post), the typical best weapon to use is a Spear or Quarterstaff. There is quite literally no better option for characters in terms of weapons than the Spear (with very few and very campaign-dependent exceptions).
Most general monks will be using a quarterstaff/spear with two hands and a bonus action to Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows.
Kensei Monks will probably use a d8 versatile weapon or longbow, and their playstyle depending on what weapon they choose (Melee Kensei use Flurry of Blows/Unarmed Strike as a bonus action while Ranged Kensei typically use a bonus action for Kensei's Shot).
Astral Self Monks tend to focus on maxing out Wisdom, using Unarmed Strikes in most cases, not weapons. If you somehow have Shillelagh, this may be different, but this is the general play to be expected.
Sun Soul Monks generally use their Radiant Sun Bolt for all their attacks when they have the opportunity, IME.
IME, Four Elements Monks spend most of their attacks using Quarterstaffs/Spears, but typically use Fangs of the Fire Snake when they want to. Other turns they use actions casting a spell and attack as a bonus action (through the Tasha's Rule).
Also that survey doesn't prove that the monk is one of the least satisfying classes to play??? There are so many reasons why the monk could be one of the least played classes.
It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. One would imagine that the more satisfying classes to play would end up being played the most. The monk is one of the least played classes, so this would suggest that it is one of the least satisfying classes to play.
Yes, there may be other factors influencing how often a class is played, but that does not discredit that one major factors of choosing a character would depend on how "satisfying" it is to play it.
One of the biggest issues with that survey is that the monk is only behind by a few thousand compared to most of the other classes. Plus It still beats the bard, sorcerer, and druid. And I doubt you'd argue that people wouldn't find those classes satisfying. I'd attribute those numbers more to convenience and how easily recognizable the archetypes of those classes are. A fighter is not only simple to play, but it is the most malleable class thematically. So it's no surprise that it takes the lead. Also, the number of players =/= how much fun those players are having with the monk.
"Behind by a few thousand compared to most other classes" is a major difference. Did you see how many people that chart was representing? It's just over 100,000, so any difference of about a thousand is a 1% difference in how often they're played. According to this source, that would mean that the Monk is played much less in percentage than the majority of other classes.
While I agree that monks should be less MAD, the monk has consistent damage (which people often downplay in comparison to any other class) and while it doesn't have smiting levels of power, does it really need that? That is why different classes exist, if you want damage just be a paladin. The monk has many features and abilities the paladin never gets. Empty body, Deflect Missiles, 4 attacks, +30 movement speed, Dodge/Disengage as a bonus, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, Evasion, Diamond Soul, etc. And while you could argue that other classes have similar stuff, that logic applies to every class. The monk will look weaker if you compare it to every other martial class at once, but if you compare them 1-1, the pros and cons for each become apparent.
Players have different priorities when choosing classes, that is why it is a choice. Should things be balanced going forward? yes, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be good at the same things in the same ways.
I didn't say they didn't need smiting levels of power. Rangers and Barbarians don't have smiting levels of damage, but they make up for the lack of nova for their long term sustained damage (Hunter's Mark and Rage, respectively). However, Monks are a strange, clunky mix of Nova and Sustained damage. They can "mini-nova" with Flurry of Blows, but it burns up their main resource (Ki), and isn't really a "nova" power. It doesn't need Smite levels of damage, but it really should determine if it is a Nova damager or Sustained damager class. It's currently in a limbo that also requires them to give up their action economy and main resource pool in order to deal damage on par with fighters/barbarians/rogues.
The problem with the monk class isn't that it has too little, it's that it has too much. It can't decide its theme while also pushing you into a very specific niche of Martial Artist. Strength based monks are practically unplayable (unless you rolled super well for your stats). They incentivize you a ton to max out Dexterity and Wisdom, while also normally requiring good Constitution. They try to be frontline warriors, skirmishers, quasi-magical boxers, and stereotypical Crouching Tiger-Green Dragon fighters all at once. It's just clunky and poorly executed. (Again, my opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong.)
Also the monk doesn't need to take the caster down in one turn with a stunning strike, the point is that with advantage on all attacks, the monk's chance of a crit is significantly higher. Meaning a potentially higher damage output which would put the caster in serious danger in one round. This would also ruin any concentration spells that the caster is using.
Critting for monks is laughably underwhelming. Good job! You rolled a critical hit! That lets you deal an extra 1d4 damage on this one attack! (Scales a bit as you level, but comparatively worse than a Greataxe and most other weapons.) My point is, the crit will be a good bonus, but monks are almost never using Stunning Strike to crit fish.
Something being an opinion doesn't make it fact either, you're not objectively right. The point is that "the monk is one of the least satisfying subclasses" is strictly subjective, but you act like you're objectively right. You're not. I mean the way you phrase that doesn't even make it sound like a matter of opinion. But whatever. Also you've clearly never heard of paraphrasing.
I didn't retype your exact words because I'm not wasting my time copy and pasting stuff. And now you're accusing me of using strawman arguments but go off I guess. Also none of that entire paragraph actually matches the point I made? Even if many monks use a spear or quarterstaff, many don't considering every new subclass provides new playstyles. Also that is just a bad argument.
"It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. One would imagine that the more satisfying classes to play would end up being played the most. The monk is one of the least played classes, so this would suggest that it is one of the least satisfying classes to play.
Yes, there may be other factors influencing how often a class is played, but that does not discredit that one major factors of choosing a character would depend on how "satisfying" it is to play it."
This point doesn't work at all. How "satisfying" a class is to play is very often not what factors into the choice of new players. It's often about what trope the class appeals to. Even moreso, that is a false equivalency. Less played could generally indicate that a class is less satisfying, but you haven't provided any actual evidence that this is the case here. You're just making a vague assumption. And I doubt that reasoning holds up for the classes below the monk.
And the monk is being played less than the other classes (as the graph clearly showed) my point is that relatively, the gap is not large enough to treat it as though the monk is vastly behind any other class in terms of player enjoyment. Again, how many people playing =/= how fun the class is to play. You're clearly not considering that most dnd players don't actually get to play that many characters as campaigns rarely last long enough to provide a definitive experience. So a lack of people playing monk (which, again, is not far behind most of the other classes by a relatively large amount, not when any of the others can be compared to the fighter just as much as the monk) could easily be more that people are only getting to play a few characters and are more quick to choose classes based on archetypes they recognize among other various factors.
The monk's abilities also split clearly between defense, utility, and offense. While I do agree that refining the class's concept and style would be better for future versions of the monk, you're still very focused on damage output when that isn't the point. Nor does it necessarily factor into how "satisfying" the monk is. Not everyone is fishing for high damage rolls. The other classes can do that well enough. Many don't play the monk that way or for that reason, and what the monk does provide still allows creative players to rp their martial artist fantasies. Also, the monk isn't made for strength so i'm not sure why not being able to make a strength based monk is relevant? That's like wanting to make an intelligence based barbarian.
Never said the monk would use the stunning strike to "crit fish" and comparing it to a greataxe is pointless. I said that because a monk potentially getting crits on more than one of their attacks against a stunned mage would be devastating, even if it didn't kill the mage instantly. Crits are crits, they help regardless of how they compare for one class to another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
ArtificeMeal: I look at the Paladin with their Aura of Protection at level 6 and feel like it's totally fine to give the Monk Diamond Soul at 7. The paladin is a more powerful class on a number of axes and giving the Monk something similarly powerful at a similar level does not feel out of hand.
I don't really connect with the idea of being cruel to monk abilities. They're game features, not sentient beings. I didn't want to just get rid of them, and putting them at 8 and 9 in conjunction with other existing abilities does a lot to even out the power spike you're worried about. Conceptually I think it's weird for a monk to learn how to shake off a specific condition entirely (stillness of mind) before getting better at protecting themselves from harmful effects in a more general way. And I just like the flavor of Evasion and Wall/Water running coming at the same level. They're both predicated on learning how to achieve superhuman levels of speed and agility. Also, remember that these changes leave level 14 and 15 open for completely new abilities that can help even out the power scaling of the class.
Fateless, I've scoured your posts in this thread with a fine tooth comb and you never mentioned that Timeless Body should come at an earlier level. If you're going to accuse us of ignoring things you say you should have at least said them. I'm not sure what you're on about not taking in what you said, because my post pointing out the relative strengths of goodberry was a DIRECT response to your post that made various statements about the high cost of the various ways to use Goodberry. This is your post:
The very next post is my response where I address you by name and break down why I think you are wrong about a number of things. Here's a quick summary:
1. You say picking up Magic Initiate purely for the sake of Goodberry isn't worth it.
2. You say that level 1 spell slot is too precious to use on Goodberry.
3. You say "no, it's not something that hasn't mattered for 12 levels. It's something that only hasn't mattered in games where the players and DM don't care to keep track".
Fateless, if you want to engage in a debate about the issues you levied against Goodberry and my rebuttal, go for it. I'm here. But don't try to mire this thread in some petty "he said, she said" thing where you accuse people of ignoring you and plowing past your statements. Especially when your accusations have no basis in truth. I won't have it.
i was not saying that it was cruel to the abillities, i said it might be cruel to the player/ the class since at the very least evasion is rather integral to its identity as a class, it might feel weird to put it at a later level
And my stance was not "getting diamond soul + stillness of mind + evasion at 7th level would cause a significant power spike", it was "getting diamond soul alone at 7th level will likely cause a significant power spike" since the feature on its own is so powerful, yes it may have the same, lower or higher bonus to each save compared to the paladin but the ability to reroll the failed save is rather potent since it makes you significantly less likely to fail an important saving throw assuming you manage abillities properly, and means that when you finally do get evasion it will be more potent than what it was before, simply put compared to the features gained at adjacent levels it would stick out quite a bit
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
this was why I said it feels like most of the Monk specific abilities felt like they needed to go down a few levels to the previous one or group of them. Diamond Soul would come online at 10th if it was done that way. Evasion depending on how you look at it would be 5th or 7th. 7th if you see it as the multiclass feature as it is. 5th if you see it as something wholely monk despite some other classes getting it. 10th doesn't feel like too soon or too much of a jump to be getting a power like it and in previous editions 11th level is where you got the older versions of what Diamond Soul does overall. And it would be fittingly useful to all of those modules and linked modules where the stories end about 13th level rather than being just out of reach of those pre-written campaigns.
ArtificeMeal I understood what your concerns are for the power spike. I think it's as simple as not agreeing on power level issues. One solution (if someone likes this layout but agrees it's too powerful) could be to separate the two functions of the ability, and to put the ability to reroll failed saves at a later level.
And I guess I see where you're coming from with making players wait longer. But I mean, it's not like they aren't getting a piece of candy when they hit level 7 with Diamond Soul. I think level 9 is still early enough to feel like a significant part of the Monk's kit.
my problem has less to do with the class itself becomming OP with this shift (even if that is indeed a concern), but more to do with how it is radically more potent cus its like
5th level: i get to deny my enemies so many actions!
6th level: a subclass feature, meh
7th level: HOLY SHIT THAT'S AWESOME I GET TO NEVER DIE?!
8th level: asi, meh at least i get this still mind thingie
9th level: rather powerful exploration feature and evasion for further impossibillity to die
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Does anyone talking about low AC barbarians actually play one? At higher levels? Specifically a bear totem? Because I do and I can tell you right now having resistance to all damage and a healthy stack of HP count for nothing when [i]every[/i] hit lands. That 224 pool that I have at level 18 with a 15 AC goes down [i]fast[/i], some would say too fast to be the tank I'm standing there doing. A barb absolutely cannot ignore their dex and settle with a low one, they need it to be in the 16-18 range minimum which when you're pumping up con and str simply isn't viable. Something has to give and yes it is still 100% MAD.
Later on I think that might be true but I'm the realm of actual play it's less likely to be an issue.
With DEX 14 and medium armor you cap at 17 AC with half plate which is where a DEX fighter will Max as well so it's not a huge issue.
They can also use a shield and hit 19 AC if really needed.
AT level 18 your into the levels where things aren't completely balanced anymore. They did not put a lot of work into balancing Tier 4 and Max Level stuff. There is some but nothing like what they put into the first 3 tiers of play. Even High AC starts meaning less for many in that range and healers start having a lot more work to do and having to rely on high level healing spells. But even ignoring all that...
What system did you use to build your character Midnight? Because with standard array you can easily do your 14 and your 15 in strength and con, even boost those higher with your race pick You still end up with at a 13 in dex. If not higher depending on various factors which means you can easily reach an AC of 16 at 18th level by maxing out Con. If you did point buy it's even easier. You can actually have 2 14's and a 15 with point buy while only having a single 8 and 2 10's spread over your mentals. So if you just maxed out Con with ASI's you'd already have a 16-17 AC. Rolling is a bit more random and could make it a bit harder to cover dex Or you could always choose to put that third highest stat elsewhere of course. So it gives us context to know.
Or the barbarian is completely free to move off of their alternate AC back onto traditional AC with magical medium armor's that they are not going to have a lot of competition for and get even higher AC. So that 17 AC mentioned by Optimus can end up being something more like 19 or 20 even before adding on a shield.
This ability to just put on armor is an advantage that the Monk just does not have. That is all purely in their stats while the Barbarian actually has a choice even if they player of said Barbarian often forgets that it exists. In Fact for Barbarians with Dex that is never really over 11 or 12, They can still always take the medium armor even without potentially using it to it's maximum AC and potentially have equal or better AC than using their Alternate AC feature for the bulk if not the whole of their adventuring career.
There are many parts of this statement that don't add up. But the biggest issue is that it seems like you haven't actually played the monk. Dnd is about so much more than numbers, calling the monk the "least satisfying class to play" is like saying that mint ice cream is objectively bad. The goal of the game is fun, and the monk (speaking as someone who has played half of the monk subclasses) is a very fun and satisfying class to play. The monk is not the paladin, nor should monk players try to be paladins or any other class. I just think that this thread has lost the point when making it seem as though a comparison between classes ever truly matters. The monk is MAD, I agree, and this should be fixed in future editions. But let's not start talking about any other class as if it were the objectively best class to play. If you care about numbers maybe, but not everyone does.
Also counterspell/dispel magic/shield mean nothing to a monk when considering action economy and the fact that it would burn the caster's resources. Monk's are built for surviving specific conditions and are still a martial class, meaning that most casters would be screwed if they got too close. One successful stunning strike could mean death for the caster, and the monk has a ton of chances to try.
For me thats what actually boils down my issue with monk: It's exceedingly rare that stunning strike isn't your best option most of the time.
People say its good to dodge as BA...but its better to just shut down the creature altogether than just have disadvantage to hit you
People say its good to dash and run up walls to avoid things....but its better to just stun something and then punch it two more times to kill it faster.
Ultimately its greatest weapon is TOO good and you basically have to use it as much as possible, especially later on when CON saves get so good you have to spam to get it to work at all.
Monks are not more vulnerable to mages than any other class. In fact in some ways the mages is actually much more vulnerable to the monk. The monk can actually force more saves than most other classes can actually do by default and has the speed to actually cover the distance to the mage in way few classes can do, at high level actually being able to cover as much as twice the distance as even the rogue.
Shield is resource intensive and doesn't dramatically effect the monks ability to hit the mage at higher levels and the mages AC is actually often lower by 2 to 3 points with a maximum capability purely through mage armor that is lower than the monks before even considering protective magical items which they can both use.
Counterspell and Dispel magic do nothing against most monks because they don't use magic and of the few that do they still tend to have a lot about their kits that does not. And for the matter of any dex based aoe the mage might use they can save to take no damage from it at all with Dex being a save that they not only prioritize stat wise but also have proficiency in, and they gain proficiency in all saves by the 4th tier of play. Giving them a decent chance of resisting most any spell cast but a strong chance of resisting all of the major spells that could be a problem. On top of that if any spell actually inflicts charmed or frightened by level 7 even if they fail the saves against those they can just break it giving limited effect at best to those spells. And things like cloud kill are ineffective by level 10.
And this is just your average monk. Probably spent most of their ASI's on stats and didn't bother to build to actually kill mages. Should they even just pick up mage slayer they are going to be hitting you every time you try to cast a spell. Have an easier time resisting your spells and make it harder for you to keep concentration. If they pick up Sentinel to go along with it not only are they going to be a tougher opponent but they will also have a decent chance of making sure that you cannot get out of their reach without blowing even more spell slots on things that don't actually attack them.
I've played a monk (as a DMPC) from levels 6 to level 15. I have played alongside another monk in a 2 on 1 campaign from level 1 to level 9. I am well aware of the mechanics of the monk class and how it functions in combat.
Of course it's subjective, but I said that is was "one of the least satisfying classes to play in 5e", not "the least satisfying class to play". There's a difference. Whether or not you intended it, you just did a Strawman argument.
I did not state that as a fact, but as an opinion from my own experience and observations in my years of playing D&D.
However, I do have facts to back up my opinion. It is one of the least played classes in the game, and also is very restrictive to playstyle. Up until Tasha's, as a monk, you were basically required to use Dexterity and only Dexterity for your attack modifier. Every monk plays basically the same, with exceptions of a couple subclasses (Astral Self, Kensei, and kind of Sun Soul/Four Elements).
I didn't claim that it was the paladin, but it is important to compare classes to other classes if you want some semblance of what is well-balanced/typical. Monks shouldn't be paladins, but they are comparable to them. They're both frontline melee fighters that use a secondary pool of resources to increase their power in combat. However, Paladins use this secondary resource pool to give them huge nova surges, while Monks use it for basically everything that isn't just attacking others.
The monk is one of the most MAD classes in the game, and not even for a good reason. Paladins are MAD to balance them out, Monks are MAD because WotC tried something new and it didn't work that well.
Also, numbers are important to the balance of the game. There is no way to balance any features without numbers. Otherwise, it would be chaos. DPR is important to characters that are supposed to be damaging characters, which monks are very much supposed to be.
You came in late to the conversation. I mentioned counterspell/dispel magic/shield to point out boons that casters have over fighting other casters that monks don't get.
Stunning Strike will only kill the wizard if the other members of the party (paladin) contributes. There's no way a Monk is going to take down a mage or diviner in one turn, even with Stunning Strike on them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I honestly agree, constitution should not have been the save for stunning strike, it is too much of a hassle against many high level enemies. The monk struggles with having many ki features to have to choose from, often settling for the potential benefits from stunning strike. Hence why new monk subclasses (way of mercy, astral self, ascendant dragon) all focus on using less ki for subclass abilities. Wotc has finally realized that monks are often too spread out among mediocre ki features that burn ki. It's the reason why so many monk players have to rely on the Mobile feat. Monks would also have been better with d10 hit die.
I love the class but I can accept that it has a few key flaws in its design.
As a point of order. A lot of monk players rely on the mobile feat because a lot of martial players rely on the mobile feat. There are other ways for the monk to do things similar to the mobile feat without actually taking it.
The beauty of stunning strike is that they no longer have to take down that caster in one turn. They have as many turns as they can keep the creature stunned to do it. And if they can hit the majority or even all of their attacks they can actually do a lot of damage. Even without using flurry of blows or anything other than their base attacks at high level is capable of a max of 45 damage, and an average of about 33 just by having the hits connect. Should they have ways to increase that damage, of which there are several, that number just goes up from there. Flurry of blows adding another 11 average with a max of 15. Eldritch claw averaging 9 or 12 depending on if your using Flurry of Blows or not. Which can net you a max damage 84, and an average damage of 56 just by using both of those two things. your average wizard is likely sitting around 100 to 120 hitpoints. maybe higher if they really focused on con rather than simply getting advantage or proficiency in Con to help their concentration saves. Which Keep in mind War Caster does not help on saves against Stunning. But there is a decent chance that before such a monk runs out of Ki if they have a max Wisdom of 20 so that they have a Con save of 19 on their stunning strikes that they will be able to single handedly take out the mage on their own.
If you played as a DMPC, I doubt you had the time to focus solely on the character and having more fun with that rather than worrying about how mechanically viable the class is. It was my mistake yes, but you admit that what you're saying is an opinion. Not only that but calling it "one of the least satisfying classes to play" doesn't change much, because that is not only subjective but generally untrue from what I've seen? Saying every monk plays the same is just false, the game has so many ways to customize playstyle and it all depends on the player.
Also that survey doesn't prove that the monk is one of the least satisfying classes to play???
There are so many reasons why the monk could be one of the least played classes. One of the biggest issues with that survey is that the monk is only behind by a few thousand compared to most of the other classes. Plus It still beats the bard, sorcerer, and druid. And I doubt you'd argue that people wouldn't find those classes satisfying. I'd attribute those numbers more to convenience and how easily recognizable the archetypes of those classes are. A fighter is not only simple to play, but it is the most malleable class thematically. So it's no surprise that it takes the lead. Also, the number of players =/= how much fun those players are having with the monk.
While I agree that monks should be less MAD, the monk has consistent damage (which people often downplay in comparison to any other class) and while it doesn't have smiting levels of power, does it really need that? That is why different classes exist, if you want damage just be a paladin. The monk has many features and abilities the paladin never gets. Empty body, Deflect Missiles, 4 attacks, +30 movement speed, Dodge/Disengage as a bonus, Slow Fall, Stunning Strike, Evasion, Diamond Soul, etc. And while you could argue that other classes have similar stuff, that logic applies to every class. The monk will look weaker if you compare it to every other martial class at once, but if you compare them 1-1, the pros and cons for each become apparent.
Players have different priorities when choosing classes, that is why it is a choice. Should things be balanced going forward? yes, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be good at the same things in the same ways.
Also the monk doesn't need to take the caster down in one turn with a stunning strike, the point is that with advantage on all attacks, the monk's chance of a crit is significantly higher. Meaning a potentially higher damage output which would put the caster in serious danger in one round. This would also ruin any concentration spells that the caster is using.
The MAD nature is actually one of the major reasons that monks get less play rather than the satisfaction of playing one. many people want to specialize more in their builds and only focus on one or two things and not a bunch of different stats. The Druid sees a lack of play for a similar reason but in it's style rather than it's stats. They just have So much that they can do that they have issues focusing on what they should even do with a Druid or how to match the type of character they make to the style of play they wish to engage in. But it's through Dirth of Features rather than delicate balance of multiple attributes.
BS. Absolute BS. You don't know me, so don't come into this thread and say "You haven't even play the class!" and then when I have told you that I have played the class and alongside one, don't tell me "that's not actually playing it!!!"
My DMPCs are added to be actual characters that participate in the campaign. It was in a one-on-one campaign that had 5 DMPCs over the course of the campaign (not at once, only 3 at a time, replacing retired/dead ones throughout the campaign). The DMPCs had fully fleshed out backstories, personalities, goals, motivations, and everything else a PC needs, including the Monk.
This is the whole "Powergamers/Minmaxers can't roleplay!" claim that is absolutely untrue. The Monk DMPC was cool, fun, and had an interesting personality and character arc. My grievances with the class have nothing to do with the roleplay potential, but everything to do with how they are played in the game. I played it for about 10 levels of play, for about a 2 year campaign.
Don't tell me that my experiences are invalid because I was at the DM at the time of playing the character. I experienced all of the play of the character and know its strengths and faults as well as anyone else that has played it for 10 levels.
(The rest will be in a later post. This is more important than the rest and deserves its own post.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And yours isn't an opinion? Everything in this thread is an opinion. Stating that a position is an opinion doesn't invalidate it. Something being an opinion doesn't make it untrue.
It does change much, as you claimed that I said something that I didn't say. That's a strawman. "One of the least" and "the least" is a big difference. It's like claiming that because someone said "Shih-Tzus are one of the smallest dog breeds" is them saying "Shih-Tzus are the smallest dog breed ever". There is a major difference.
Also, I didn't say that "every monk plays the same", that's another strawman. I said "Every monk plays basically the same [way], with some exceptions . . ." and you're claiming that I made a blanket statement when I purposefully made a statement to avoid a definite generalization.
It depends on the player, but for a base monk and subclasses that play like base monks (non Kensei/Astral Self, and the two I mentioned in my previous post), the typical best weapon to use is a Spear or Quarterstaff. There is quite literally no better option for characters in terms of weapons than the Spear (with very few and very campaign-dependent exceptions).
Most general monks will be using a quarterstaff/spear with two hands and a bonus action to Unarmed Strike/Flurry of Blows.
Kensei Monks will probably use a d8 versatile weapon or longbow, and their playstyle depending on what weapon they choose (Melee Kensei use Flurry of Blows/Unarmed Strike as a bonus action while Ranged Kensei typically use a bonus action for Kensei's Shot).
Astral Self Monks tend to focus on maxing out Wisdom, using Unarmed Strikes in most cases, not weapons. If you somehow have Shillelagh, this may be different, but this is the general play to be expected.
Sun Soul Monks generally use their Radiant Sun Bolt for all their attacks when they have the opportunity, IME.
IME, Four Elements Monks spend most of their attacks using Quarterstaffs/Spears, but typically use Fangs of the Fire Snake when they want to. Other turns they use actions casting a spell and attack as a bonus action (through the Tasha's Rule).
It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. One would imagine that the more satisfying classes to play would end up being played the most. The monk is one of the least played classes, so this would suggest that it is one of the least satisfying classes to play.
Yes, there may be other factors influencing how often a class is played, but that does not discredit that one major factors of choosing a character would depend on how "satisfying" it is to play it.
"Behind by a few thousand compared to most other classes" is a major difference. Did you see how many people that chart was representing? It's just over 100,000, so any difference of about a thousand is a 1% difference in how often they're played. According to this source, that would mean that the Monk is played much less in percentage than the majority of other classes.
I didn't say they didn't need smiting levels of power. Rangers and Barbarians don't have smiting levels of damage, but they make up for the lack of nova for their long term sustained damage (Hunter's Mark and Rage, respectively). However, Monks are a strange, clunky mix of Nova and Sustained damage. They can "mini-nova" with Flurry of Blows, but it burns up their main resource (Ki), and isn't really a "nova" power. It doesn't need Smite levels of damage, but it really should determine if it is a Nova damager or Sustained damager class. It's currently in a limbo that also requires them to give up their action economy and main resource pool in order to deal damage on par with fighters/barbarians/rogues.
The problem with the monk class isn't that it has too little, it's that it has too much. It can't decide its theme while also pushing you into a very specific niche of Martial Artist. Strength based monks are practically unplayable (unless you rolled super well for your stats). They incentivize you a ton to max out Dexterity and Wisdom, while also normally requiring good Constitution. They try to be frontline warriors, skirmishers, quasi-magical boxers, and stereotypical Crouching Tiger-Green Dragon fighters all at once. It's just clunky and poorly executed. (Again, my opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong.)
Critting for monks is laughably underwhelming. Good job! You rolled a critical hit! That lets you deal an extra 1d4 damage on this one attack! (Scales a bit as you level, but comparatively worse than a Greataxe and most other weapons.) My point is, the crit will be a good bonus, but monks are almost never using Stunning Strike to crit fish.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Something being an opinion doesn't make it fact either, you're not objectively right. The point is that "the monk is one of the least satisfying subclasses" is strictly subjective, but you act like you're objectively right. You're not. I mean the way you phrase that doesn't even make it sound like a matter of opinion. But whatever. Also you've clearly never heard of paraphrasing.
I didn't retype your exact words because I'm not wasting my time copy and pasting stuff. And now you're accusing me of using strawman arguments but go off I guess. Also none of that entire paragraph actually matches the point I made? Even if many monks use a spear or quarterstaff, many don't considering every new subclass provides new playstyles.
Also that is just a bad argument.
"It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. One would imagine that the more satisfying classes to play would end up being played the most. The monk is one of the least played classes, so this would suggest that it is one of the least satisfying classes to play.
Yes, there may be other factors influencing how often a class is played, but that does not discredit that one major factors of choosing a character would depend on how "satisfying" it is to play it."
This point doesn't work at all. How "satisfying" a class is to play is very often not what factors into the choice of new players. It's often about what trope the class appeals to. Even moreso, that is a false equivalency. Less played could generally indicate that a class is less satisfying, but you haven't provided any actual evidence that this is the case here. You're just making a vague assumption. And I doubt that reasoning holds up for the classes below the monk.
And the monk is being played less than the other classes (as the graph clearly showed) my point is that relatively, the gap is not large enough to treat it as though the monk is vastly behind any other class in terms of player enjoyment. Again, how many people playing =/= how fun the class is to play. You're clearly not considering that most dnd players don't actually get to play that many characters as campaigns rarely last long enough to provide a definitive experience. So a lack of people playing monk (which, again, is not far behind most of the other classes by a relatively large amount, not when any of the others can be compared to the fighter just as much as the monk) could easily be more that people are only getting to play a few characters and are more quick to choose classes based on archetypes they recognize among other various factors.
The monk's abilities also split clearly between defense, utility, and offense. While I do agree that refining the class's concept and style would be better for future versions of the monk, you're still very focused on damage output when that isn't the point. Nor does it necessarily factor into how "satisfying" the monk is. Not everyone is fishing for high damage rolls. The other classes can do that well enough. Many don't play the monk that way or for that reason, and what the monk does provide still allows creative players to rp their martial artist fantasies. Also, the monk isn't made for strength so i'm not sure why not being able to make a strength based monk is relevant? That's like wanting to make an intelligence based barbarian.
Never said the monk would use the stunning strike to "crit fish" and comparing it to a greataxe is pointless. I said that because a monk potentially getting crits on more than one of their attacks against a stunned mage would be devastating, even if it didn't kill the mage instantly. Crits are crits, they help regardless of how they compare for one class to another.