Monks are kinda silly because they punch armor and can get crazy speeds that can break encounters.
Gnomes, ... well if you played with my Gnome player that asks questions and acts silly all the freaking (!) time, you'd understand.
Punching armoured foes and dealing damage is unrealistic in a game where a Rogue can evade all damage from a fireball despite being cornered with no way to dodge or escape, and where a Bard can deal damage by insulting someone..? Really?
As for Gnomes, that's more of an issue with your players. Literally every playable race is subject to stereotypes. Dwarves? Short dumb Scottish men. Elves? Tall, snooty, prejudiced supremacists. Hell, I've got a player who 90% of his characters are chaotic good/neutral Kobolds and I still allow them.
Only PHB. No Gnomes. No Monks. I'm still learning the game.
...why? I can kind of understand not allowing Monks, given how underpowered they are (although an outright ban seems unnecessary), but Gnomes? Is there some ultra-broken race/class combo I'm not aware of? Or are the restrictions because of your setting?
Interesting. I think opposite actually. I think Monks are very strong, almost a Class I made "prestige." I made Paladin a prestige class in my world. Meaning, you need to be at least level 10 before you can become a Paladin and need to take your oath in game and succeed on a vision quest from your deity. Monks, while not as strong as Paladins in my opinion, are super versatile and have exceptional defenses and utility. I wonder what makes you say they are underpowered? If you're looking at it from a pure burst damage perspective, sure. But overall I think having a monk significantly increases the party's ability. Happy to hear your thoughts!
Monks aren't nearly as versatile as most other martial classes, many of their abilities are very situational, and their unarmed strikes - the main thing that makes them more powerful - can easily be outclassed in damage by playing a grapple-based fighter. Also, it costs a Ki point to dash as a bonus action when the Rogue gets it for free. I recently played a Way of the Drunken Master Monk and the only reason I could keep up with the other player was because the DM, for some reason, literally gave me a pair of +5 gauntlets (they increased unarmed strike damage, not AC), and even then all I did in combat was run towards the opponent and spam Flurry of Blows.
I really see absolutely no reason to lock the Monk - or any other class for that matter - behind a whole 10 levels. If it works for your group, that's great, but the Monk seriously isn't very good. The optimal build for a Monk is literally just to buy a gun and get the Gunner feat.
I'd actually be very interested to hear why you consider the Monk to be so powerful. I don't mean this sarcastically or in a smug way. If there's some super-powerful Monk build or multiclass I'm unaware of, I'd like to know.
Edit: also I ended up using the Deflect Missiles feature a whopping 1 time during the course of two adventures. I love the theme of the Monk, and had a lot of fun playing it, but the whole class felt very underwhelming.
Sure - happy to give you my take. Perhaps it is specific to my campaigns only, since I run a very immersive and gritty style of play, but to me the Monk class is stock full of exceptional features, particularly at later levels. I won't get into the later level stuff like being able to speak and understand any spoken language, being completely immune to disease and poison, the fact that you no longer age, nor require food, or water - since I think these speak for themselves in terms of OP.
But even at early levels, if you play a monk with a certain level of strategy, I've seen it be a very powerful class. Especially combined with the Mobile feat - where attacks do not provoke opportunity. You can essentially have a high-movement speed character than can continuously dart around the battle map, flanking enemies to give the party members advantage, without provoking opportunity. Moreso, monks can negate fall damage, which is a serious danger (at least in my campaigns), have the ability to catch arrows (a common weapon across many enemy types), and, my personal favorite, end up with magical unarmed strikes by 6th level. This means that even if the party gets disarmed or stripped of their possessions in any way, they only need the monk to jump into the fray and be able to magically anything it comes across. Also, don't forget STUNNING STRIKE. The use of a ki point is good for balancing obviously, but stunning an enemy even for a single round is huge.
This is where I would circle back to my original point about damage. If you're lookin to just be a "run up and punch a bunch of times" monk, then you won't compare in damage to the other classes. But in terms of straight up utility, tactical advantage, and having a way to always maintain magical weapons without being disarmed (unless the monk is literally dis-armed), I see as a rather powerful class. Just my thoughts tho - could be campaign specific.
As for Paladin, I've always felt that was a class that was OP, even before I started playing D&D. But 5e takes the cake on that. It skews so early on in terms of power that locking it behind 10 levels was the only way I feel it to be balanced. Immune to all disease by LEVEL 3, controlled healing magic (LoH), heavy armor proficiency, smites that can just be pumped into enemies on a hit, the ability to summon a warhorse out of thin air, the list goes. All of these things negate many of the fun challenges that a party should face in the early levels. But again, that's just my style. :)
Ah, that explains it. The games I run and play are generally your typical heroic fantasy, Tolkien-esque adventures, where high movement speed is relatively common and disease doesn't apply very often. I can see why the Monk and the Paladin are more powerful in a realistic, gritty campaign. I've been considering running a gritty realism campaign at some point so I'll keep that in mind
Ah, that explains it. The games I run and play are generally your typical heroic fantasy, Tolkien-esque adventures, where high movement speed is relatively common and disease doesn't apply very often. I can see why the Monk and the Paladin are more powerful in a realistic, gritty campaign. I've been considering running a gritty realism campaign at some point so I'll keep that in mind
That makes sense! Yes, in a heroic tier of play, I can definitely seem Monk as being underpowered compared to the others. I'd strongly recommend trying a gritty realism campaign if you ever get the chance - illness, fatigue, starvation/dehydration, madness, long-winded curses - all things that magic weapons and armor can't fight. It really dials up the tension. Perhaps some more work on the DM side as you have to embed all of these different facets, but totally worth it!
Ah, that explains it. The games I run and play are generally your typical heroic fantasy, Tolkien-esque adventures, where high movement speed is relatively common and disease doesn't apply very often. I can see why the Monk and the Paladin are more powerful in a realistic, gritty campaign. I've been considering running a gritty realism campaign at some point so I'll keep that in mind
That makes sense! Yes, in a heroic tier of play, I can definitely seem Monk as being underpowered compared to the others. I'd strongly recommend trying a gritty realism campaign if you ever get the chance - illness, fatigue, starvation/dehydration, madness, long-winded curses - all things that magic weapons and armor can't fight. It really dials up the tension. Perhaps some more work on the DM side as you have to embed all of these different facets, but totally worth it!
I have a similar experience with Monks as Zyrrel, probably because we apparently run similar styles of games. I don't think they're too strong, and don't limit them, but I do see them as a very valuable addition to a party. This is really interesting.
I've only had one player want to be a monk in 5e. In preparation for the game I watched a lot of videos and read a lot about how people thought they were weak in this edition. I saw tons of suggestions to fix them, but they all seemed frankly way overworked and complicated. But I still didn't want him to have a bad time playing one. So I adopted only one house rule for him. I raised his martial arts die by one step. So he started with d6 at level 1 and went up to d8 at 5th level, etc. Honestly I think for most people that's all you really need to 'fix' them.
But I can see my impression might be influenced by the style of game we play. He's extremely useful in natural exploration, and his Monk abilities often save the day. Using Stillness of Mind, he was able to meditate and end an Aboleth's Enslave charm, which was the only thing that prevented the party from total domination. For one example.
Even in combat he is a master of battlefield control. His high mobility, flexible action choices, and range of effects are very useful. And he's only using the Open Hand subclass from the PHB. I can't count how many times he has flown across the map to engage an important target, or used Step of the Wind to grab a hurt companion and whisk them away to safety. He's leapt from an airship and pummeled flying enemies all the way down to the ground knowing he won't be hurt. Run into hordes of monsters armed with ranged weapons, snatching their arrows from the air. He's genuinely one of the most cinematic awesome martials to watch.
But yes, this is just one experience in one style of game. I love Monks, and always have. I never understood why people thought they were weak, but this does help clear that up some.
Hahaha. I don't know the story behind those bans, but the way you state it so bluntly made me chuckle.
Everything in the PHB is good. Except Gnomes... Can't stand those guys in particular.
Wait, you're not secretly a Kobold are you?
No, I'm not secretly a Kobold AFAIK. But they do tell me I still have a piece of Lizard Brain, so ... ?
Hahaha. Sounds like you have a player that really gets on some of those nerves. I'm sorry, I've been there too, and banned some things as a result as well. (I'm looking at you, Malkavians...)
To make my games new player friendly I've always stuck to races and classes in PHB. D&D is complex enough to get to grips with (and in my opinion should never be someones introduction to TTRPGs because of that fact). The extra races and classes of XGtE, and TCoE add in mechanics and extras that provide extra options, but make the learning curve that much more steep for newbies.
On a personal note, when I've allowed non PHB classes and races to be utilised I as DM have had a much less fun time. There has been a higher number of power players that I've experienced in non-PHB races/classes. Players wanting to eek out every last point of damage that they possibly can rather than actually roleplaying or collaboratively storytelling. Though that may just be players I've encountered since hosting online games. For the ten years prior, I stuck to core sources and really never encountered that personality type.
If I was to pass on a piece of advice though, the real indicator of what races and classes should or should not be allowed are going to depend on the setting and the world that you choose to set you campaign in. I will always see D&D as a high fantasy setting, there are just other TTRPGs that do space, or western, or urban fantasy settings more justice in my opinion. So, for that reason I never allow firearms or artificers. They just don't fit the setting that I utilise. If you were setting a game in space however, I might question the use of more traditional classes. Does a ranger really make sense in space? Probably not. So, I think as DMs/GMs we kind of need to be flexible enough to understand that setting has to dictate those race/class options.
In general my approach would be that it depends on the setting.
Though even if the setting accomodated it I hate flyers, furries and monster-type races like Yuan-ti. They're more of a pain than anything else. Though, you could say the same about changelings, but a large part of it is the player I guess.
I am also not a fan of Artificer. To me, it belong in a sci-fi/spelljammer setting if anything. Otherwise, you have a Lord of the Rings type troupe running around with Iron Man and it just doesn't fit. Haha. Rare to find someone else who doesn't buy into artificer as I've seen it to be pretty popular.
I agree with most of that. I also always found the artificer to be a bit weird in a LotR kinda setting. But the Alchemist subclass actually works pretty well in that setting too. I have one in my medieval game and it isn't too clashing with the setting luckly. Altough I do find that to be an exception within the subclasses.
Artificer depends on how you flavour it. In a LotR setting, I would have an armorer artificer much more magical than mechanical - the armour being linked by magic, not hinges, powered by magic, not springs and pistons, and so forth. Reflavouring to suit the game is an important aspect of play, I feel!
I have not banned races from my games yet, though I would probably consider Aarakokras and any other flying races to be something of a concern. I also have a setting I'm putting together which would need most of the races to be banned, but that's because your average dnd race would simply drown - it's an underwater adventure!
I would consider limiting character creation if I were running a themed game, but I would likely plan the game with the players so they know what to expect. For drop-in oneshots and the like, I don't restrict anything because it is largely inconsequential!
As it happens, I've been recently thinking about how the Nazgul are like Armorer/Artificers with a dip in shadow magic. They have martial abilities but use suggestion and command spells to dominate (and if you set them on fire they retreat expeditiously in a spectral form).
On topic, I've yet to ban anything from the table. I'm pretty open to whatever the players want to introduce - I'm not sure what it would take for me to say no. If there's a seeming contradiction, that's usually something you can spend some time justifying storywise and maybe that leads to something interesting.
I allow all official races in my games with no exceptions. Personally, I find that it is not hard to explain how a race such as a Fairy can be in your world if you just spend a bit of time working with your player to come up with that answer together. You don't need to explain how every race fits into your homebrew world, in fact, you don't need to explain how any race fits into your homebrew world: you can just say they fit into it and not bother explaining how. That works fine, as long as your players are okay with it.
And if your players want you to explain how their "exotic" races fit into their world, it shouldn't be hard, since you only have to create explanations then for the races that your players have chosen to play. And even then, that's only if your players want you to explain that lore. And even then, that's only if you're fine with meeting their request of explaining that lore.
As for banning races for mechanical reasons, I think that it is quite simple just to modify those races mechanical stats and warn your players in advance that you are doing so. Reworking a race does not take nearly as much work as reworking a class.
With all that being said, banning races is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not every DM wants to do work to explain or modify things, and its fine not to want things in your world without explanation. So while I never ban races in my worlds, you can feel free to do that in your games. There is nothing wrong with that, and if a player leaves your group because you banned a race they like, then more power to them; someone who leaves your game over something as small as that is not someone you would have wanted to play with anyways.
TL;DR: I don't ban races in my games, but feel free to do so in your games if you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Oh, I didn't realize this thread was about classes also; I ban no classes in my games because I feel that it limits my players options too much, since there is already only a small pool of classes to choose from. I honestly don't see the point of banning classes, races are one thing since there are so many of them, but there are only 13 official classes (including Artificer) and limiting 1 of 13 is a much bigger deal than limiting 1 of 40+ (including the races from M3).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Oh, I didn't realize this thread was about classes also; I ban no classes in my games because I feel that it limits my players options too much, since there is already only a small pool of classes to choose from. I honestly don't see the point of banning classes, races are one thing since there are so many of them, but there are only 13 official classes (including Artificer) and limiting 1 of 13 is a much bigger deal than limiting 1 of 40+ (including the races from M3).
This is why I allow Artificers regardless of setting. They're awesome mechanically, and contrary to popular belief, do not have to be a steampunk/arcanapunk tinkerer. Literally anyone who creates magic items or imbues objects with magic is an Artificer.
Artificers are great for any setting. I understand how the common perception was formed, based on the setting they came from. But there are thousands of ways to flavor them differently. I had a forest gnome alchemist that made every spell out of clay pots filled with various berries, slimes, and chemicals found in the woods. I'm also happy a class exists to let me finally fulfill my dream of making a wizard that focuses on magical item creation. Or a dwarf weaponsmith of the highest caliber.
Sure - happy to give you my take. Perhaps it is specific to my campaigns only, since I run a very immersive and gritty style of play, but to me the Monk class is stock full of exceptional features, particularly at later levels. I won't get into the later level stuff like being able to speak and understand any spoken language, being completely immune to disease and poison, the fact that you no longer age, nor require food, or water - since I think these speak for themselves in terms of OP.
But even at early levels, if you play a monk with a certain level of strategy, I've seen it be a very powerful class. Especially combined with the Mobile feat - where attacks do not provoke opportunity. You can essentially have a high-movement speed character than can continuously dart around the battle map, flanking enemies to give the party members advantage, without provoking opportunity. Moreso, monks can negate fall damage, which is a serious danger (at least in my campaigns), have the ability to catch arrows (a common weapon across many enemy types), and, my personal favorite, end up with magical unarmed strikes by 6th level. This means that even if the party gets disarmed or stripped of their possessions in any way, they only need the monk to jump into the fray and be able to magically anything it comes across. Also, don't forget STUNNING STRIKE. The use of a ki point is good for balancing obviously, but stunning an enemy even for a single round is huge.
This is where I would circle back to my original point about damage. If you're lookin to just be a "run up and punch a bunch of times" monk, then you won't compare in damage to the other classes. But in terms of straight up utility, tactical advantage, and having a way to always maintain magical weapons without being disarmed (unless the monk is literally dis-armed), I see as a rather powerful class. Just my thoughts tho - could be campaign specific.
As for Paladin, I've always felt that was a class that was OP, even before I started playing D&D. But 5e takes the cake on that. It skews so early on in terms of power that locking it behind 10 levels was the only way I feel it to be balanced. Immune to all disease by LEVEL 3, controlled healing magic (LoH), heavy armor proficiency, smites that can just be pumped into enemies on a hit, the ability to summon a warhorse out of thin air, the list goes. All of these things negate many of the fun challenges that a party should face in the early levels. But again, that's just my style. :)
I haven't played a monk in a gritty style campaign but I think in a lot of ways they are mre like a Gish than a pure martial class. Not as good at pure physical damage as pure martial classes but able to compensate for that by "magical" abilities
At level 13 a monk is able to speak and understand any spoken language, this is hte equivalent of tongues a 3rd evel spell (that can be cast on the party face), by the time a monk is immune to disease and poison using a second level spell slop on lesser restoration is rarely a problem, A party with access to goodberry (or create food and water) has no issues with nourishment.
It is interesting that what you see as a problem of having a monk with mobility I see as a problem with flanking. I have no problem with a monk using a feat to be able to avoid opp attacks (without burning ki) because that is at the expense onincreasing their dex or wis. Instead I think the optional flanking rules make it far to easy to get advantage negating features such as rage. I never use flanking rules in my games.
If the party get disarmed the spell casters will still be able to cast spells spells like eldritch blast, sacred flame, fire bolt and toll the dead all do not require material components so can still be cast even if their focus / component puch has been taken away. In my campaigns by level 6 most of the martials have a magic weapon so the monk having magin unarmed attacks is needed to keep up though I can understand in a campaign where magical weapons are non-existant or extremely rare the abilty to overcome magic resistance is huge.
Stunning strike is the biggest feature that a monk gets, at least before diamond soul. I agree stunning an enemy for a single round is huge but spells like sleep, hold person and hypnotic pattern can do the same to multiple enemies (hold person being upcast to affect more than one creature)
I have taken a monk to level 20 most of the enemies were non-humanoid so being attacked by arrows only came up once or twice, disease never came up though I admit immunity to poison helped significantly onseveral occassions.
I think one of the reasons monks are considered underpowered is a lot of their features can be got in other ways in books published after the PHB. Several races can ignore fall damage some have flight which means if they "fall" they can get back up to where the rest of the party are Others like symic hybrid have a feature the equivalent to slow fall. (Legacy) Yuan Te are immune to poison and so on.
Oh, I didn't realize this thread was about classes also; I ban no classes in my games because I feel that it limits my players options too much, since there is already only a small pool of classes to choose from. I honestly don't see the point of banning classes, races are one thing since there are so many of them, but there are only 13 official classes (including Artificer) and limiting 1 of 13 is a much bigger deal than limiting 1 of 40+ (including the races from M3).
Yeah....that's kind of an odd statement to make. If you factor in the subclasses (archetypes etc) there's 100+ subclasses. Heck, even if we go with just the 13, you need to add in the possibility of multi/dual classing and that will take you up to 13 'pure' classes, and 78 options for characters with two classes. That alone is 91 options as far as classes come in.
The idea that it is a small pool isn't entirely correct. There's a lot of options available. Multiply the 91 options by the 9 core races in PHB and you're already at 819 possible class/race options.
Given that, do you still think it's too limiting? Or perhaps you don't go in for dual/multi classing?
Yeah....that's kind of an odd statement to make. If you factor in the subclasses (archetypes etc) there's 100+ subclasses. Heck, even if we go with just the 13, you need to add in the possibility of multi/dual classing and that will take you up to 13 'pure' classes, and 78 options for characters with two classes. That alone is 91 options as far as classes come in.
The idea that it is a small pool isn't entirely correct. There's a lot of options available. Multiply the 91 options by the 9 core races in PHB and you're already at 819 possible class/race options.
Given that, do you still think it's too limiting? Or perhaps you don't go in for dual/multi classing?
Yes, I do. Subclasses and classes are very different. Including subclasses in with classes when we were supposed to be talking about the latter ignores the simple reality that A) subclasses are only a few features B) they don't actually massively alter the way you play a class, just change it slightly and C) You only even start to get subclass features after you have already put multiple levels into the base class (for most classes at least).
If you are finding every single combination of classes, subclasses, and multiclassing combos then yes, there will be plenty of options. But not only does banning a class limit the amount of all of the other options as well, but it is banning options for the biggest and most informative part of your character. There are not many classes in D&D, but there are many more races it. Yes, I know that you can make numerous different character combinations, but you can do that with races as one of the parts of your combinations too, and if you count them in then the options explode.
Classes, subclasses, and multiclass combinations are all very different things. There are only 13 official classes, and yes, banning one of them significantly reduces the amount of options in that regard much more than it would if you banned 1 of the 40+ races. Classes are the defining feature of your character, whether or not you think that should be so, and banning options for that defining feature means people will be forced to pick the most important part of their character from a small, limited pool. I don't think arguing that your players should multiclass or find other ways to customize their character is a fair justification for severely limiting the amount of choice they have when picking the much more important and much less customizable option of their character.
But anyways, you play how you want at your table. Your fun doesn't hurt mine or my players fun after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Sure - happy to give you my take. Perhaps it is specific to my campaigns only, since I run a very immersive and gritty style of play, but to me the Monk class is stock full of exceptional features, particularly at later levels. I won't get into the later level stuff like being able to speak and understand any spoken language, being completely immune to disease and poison, the fact that you no longer age, nor require food, or water - since I think these speak for themselves in terms of OP.
But even at early levels, if you play a monk with a certain level of strategy, I've seen it be a very powerful class. Especially combined with the Mobile feat - where attacks do not provoke opportunity. You can essentially have a high-movement speed character than can continuously dart around the battle map, flanking enemies to give the party members advantage, without provoking opportunity. Moreso, monks can negate fall damage, which is a serious danger (at least in my campaigns), have the ability to catch arrows (a common weapon across many enemy types), and, my personal favorite, end up with magical unarmed strikes by 6th level. This means that even if the party gets disarmed or stripped of their possessions in any way, they only need the monk to jump into the fray and be able to magically anything it comes across. Also, don't forget STUNNING STRIKE. The use of a ki point is good for balancing obviously, but stunning an enemy even for a single round is huge.
This is where I would circle back to my original point about damage. If you're lookin to just be a "run up and punch a bunch of times" monk, then you won't compare in damage to the other classes. But in terms of straight up utility, tactical advantage, and having a way to always maintain magical weapons without being disarmed (unless the monk is literally dis-armed), I see as a rather powerful class. Just my thoughts tho - could be campaign specific.
As for Paladin, I've always felt that was a class that was OP, even before I started playing D&D. But 5e takes the cake on that. It skews so early on in terms of power that locking it behind 10 levels was the only way I feel it to be balanced. Immune to all disease by LEVEL 3, controlled healing magic (LoH), heavy armor proficiency, smites that can just be pumped into enemies on a hit, the ability to summon a warhorse out of thin air, the list goes. All of these things negate many of the fun challenges that a party should face in the early levels. But again, that's just my style. :)
I haven't played a monk in a gritty style campaign but I think in a lot of ways they are mre like a Gish than a pure martial class. Not as good at pure physical damage as pure martial classes but able to compensate for that by "magical" abilities
At level 13 a monk is able to speak and understand any spoken language, this is hte equivalent of tongues a 3rd evel spell (that can be cast on the party face), by the time a monk is immune to disease and poison using a second level spell slop on lesser restoration is rarely a problem, A party with access to goodberry (or create food and water) has no issues with nourishment.
It is interesting that what you see as a problem of having a monk with mobility I see as a problem with flanking. I have no problem with a monk using a feat to be able to avoid opp attacks (without burning ki) because that is at the expense onincreasing their dex or wis. Instead I think the optional flanking rules make it far to easy to get advantage negating features such as rage. I never use flanking rules in my games.
If the party get disarmed the spell casters will still be able to cast spells spells like eldritch blast, sacred flame, fire bolt and toll the dead all do not require material components so can still be cast even if their focus / component puch has been taken away. In my campaigns by level 6 most of the martials have a magic weapon so the monk having magin unarmed attacks is needed to keep up though I can understand in a campaign where magical weapons are non-existant or extremely rare the abilty to overcome magic resistance is huge.
Stunning strike is the biggest feature that a monk gets, at least before diamond soul. I agree stunning an enemy for a single round is huge but spells like sleep, hold person and hypnotic pattern can do the same to multiple enemies (hold person being upcast to affect more than one creature)
I have taken a monk to level 20 most of the enemies were non-humanoid so being attacked by arrows only came up once or twice, disease never came up though I admit immunity to poison helped significantly onseveral occassions.
I think one of the reasons monks are considered underpowered is a lot of their features can be got in other ways in books published after the PHB. Several races can ignore fall damage some have flight which means if they "fall" they can get back up to where the rest of the party are Others like symic hybrid have a feature the equivalent to slow fall. (Legacy) Yuan Te are immune to poison and so on.
These are all good points - but I suppose I should clarify that my style of grit also removes lots of the overpowered spells. When I say "overpowered", I mean OP in terms of a gritty realism setting. Spells like Goodberry, for example, are heavily modified in my world. Even LesserRestoration and RemoveCurse are far too simplified for a gritty realism campaign, because it completely negates the survival stakes. Spells like Comprehend Languages and Tongues have also been modified to make them require more precious resources to cast. Because, in the same vein, this magic just completely erases the distinction in languages that PCs know - both racially and from backstory. Further to that, I completely removed Primordial as a language that you can choose to learn. Since it's straight elemental chaos, only Genasi can speak it in my setting.
So, yes, I agree with you that Monk is not really strong for 5E. My group doesn't play 5E - it is essentially 40% 5E and 60% homebrew/house rules for increased immersion. After the first year of playing 5E, we've found that it is way too easy and simplified. I should have clarified that point more.
From a straight Fifth Edition/non-gritty perspective, I agree with you completely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Monks are kinda silly because they punch armor and can get crazy speeds that can break encounters.
Gnomes, ... well if you played with my Gnome player that asks questions and acts silly all the freaking (!) time, you'd understand.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Punching armoured foes and dealing damage is unrealistic in a game where a Rogue can evade all damage from a fireball despite being cornered with no way to dodge or escape, and where a Bard can deal damage by insulting someone..? Really?
As for Gnomes, that's more of an issue with your players. Literally every playable race is subject to stereotypes. Dwarves? Short dumb Scottish men. Elves? Tall, snooty, prejudiced supremacists. Hell, I've got a player who 90% of his characters are chaotic good/neutral Kobolds and I still allow them.
[REDACTED]
Sure - happy to give you my take. Perhaps it is specific to my campaigns only, since I run a very immersive and gritty style of play, but to me the Monk class is stock full of exceptional features, particularly at later levels. I won't get into the later level stuff like being able to speak and understand any spoken language, being completely immune to disease and poison, the fact that you no longer age, nor require food, or water - since I think these speak for themselves in terms of OP.
But even at early levels, if you play a monk with a certain level of strategy, I've seen it be a very powerful class. Especially combined with the Mobile feat - where attacks do not provoke opportunity. You can essentially have a high-movement speed character than can continuously dart around the battle map, flanking enemies to give the party members advantage, without provoking opportunity. Moreso, monks can negate fall damage, which is a serious danger (at least in my campaigns), have the ability to catch arrows (a common weapon across many enemy types), and, my personal favorite, end up with magical unarmed strikes by 6th level. This means that even if the party gets disarmed or stripped of their possessions in any way, they only need the monk to jump into the fray and be able to magically anything it comes across. Also, don't forget STUNNING STRIKE. The use of a ki point is good for balancing obviously, but stunning an enemy even for a single round is huge.
This is where I would circle back to my original point about damage. If you're lookin to just be a "run up and punch a bunch of times" monk, then you won't compare in damage to the other classes. But in terms of straight up utility, tactical advantage, and having a way to always maintain magical weapons without being disarmed (unless the monk is literally dis-armed), I see as a rather powerful class. Just my thoughts tho - could be campaign specific.
As for Paladin, I've always felt that was a class that was OP, even before I started playing D&D. But 5e takes the cake on that. It skews so early on in terms of power that locking it behind 10 levels was the only way I feel it to be balanced. Immune to all disease by LEVEL 3, controlled healing magic (LoH), heavy armor proficiency, smites that can just be pumped into enemies on a hit, the ability to summon a warhorse out of thin air, the list goes. All of these things negate many of the fun challenges that a party should face in the early levels. But again, that's just my style. :)
Ah, that explains it. The games I run and play are generally your typical heroic fantasy, Tolkien-esque adventures, where high movement speed is relatively common and disease doesn't apply very often. I can see why the Monk and the Paladin are more powerful in a realistic, gritty campaign. I've been considering running a gritty realism campaign at some point so I'll keep that in mind
[REDACTED]
That makes sense! Yes, in a heroic tier of play, I can definitely seem Monk as being underpowered compared to the others. I'd strongly recommend trying a gritty realism campaign if you ever get the chance - illness, fatigue, starvation/dehydration, madness, long-winded curses - all things that magic weapons and armor can't fight. It really dials up the tension. Perhaps some more work on the DM side as you have to embed all of these different facets, but totally worth it!
No, I'm not secretly a Kobold AFAIK. But they do tell me I still have a piece of Lizard Brain, so ... ?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I have a similar experience with Monks as Zyrrel, probably because we apparently run similar styles of games. I don't think they're too strong, and don't limit them, but I do see them as a very valuable addition to a party. This is really interesting.
I've only had one player want to be a monk in 5e. In preparation for the game I watched a lot of videos and read a lot about how people thought they were weak in this edition. I saw tons of suggestions to fix them, but they all seemed frankly way overworked and complicated. But I still didn't want him to have a bad time playing one. So I adopted only one house rule for him. I raised his martial arts die by one step. So he started with d6 at level 1 and went up to d8 at 5th level, etc. Honestly I think for most people that's all you really need to 'fix' them.
But I can see my impression might be influenced by the style of game we play. He's extremely useful in natural exploration, and his Monk abilities often save the day. Using Stillness of Mind, he was able to meditate and end an Aboleth's Enslave charm, which was the only thing that prevented the party from total domination. For one example.
Even in combat he is a master of battlefield control. His high mobility, flexible action choices, and range of effects are very useful. And he's only using the Open Hand subclass from the PHB. I can't count how many times he has flown across the map to engage an important target, or used Step of the Wind to grab a hurt companion and whisk them away to safety. He's leapt from an airship and pummeled flying enemies all the way down to the ground knowing he won't be hurt. Run into hordes of monsters armed with ranged weapons, snatching their arrows from the air. He's genuinely one of the most cinematic awesome martials to watch.
But yes, this is just one experience in one style of game. I love Monks, and always have. I never understood why people thought they were weak, but this does help clear that up some.
Hahaha. Sounds like you have a player that really gets on some of those nerves. I'm sorry, I've been there too, and banned some things as a result as well. (I'm looking at you, Malkavians...)
To make my games new player friendly I've always stuck to races and classes in PHB. D&D is complex enough to get to grips with (and in my opinion should never be someones introduction to TTRPGs because of that fact). The extra races and classes of XGtE, and TCoE add in mechanics and extras that provide extra options, but make the learning curve that much more steep for newbies.
On a personal note, when I've allowed non PHB classes and races to be utilised I as DM have had a much less fun time. There has been a higher number of power players that I've experienced in non-PHB races/classes. Players wanting to eek out every last point of damage that they possibly can rather than actually roleplaying or collaboratively storytelling. Though that may just be players I've encountered since hosting online games. For the ten years prior, I stuck to core sources and really never encountered that personality type.
If I was to pass on a piece of advice though, the real indicator of what races and classes should or should not be allowed are going to depend on the setting and the world that you choose to set you campaign in. I will always see D&D as a high fantasy setting, there are just other TTRPGs that do space, or western, or urban fantasy settings more justice in my opinion. So, for that reason I never allow firearms or artificers. They just don't fit the setting that I utilise. If you were setting a game in space however, I might question the use of more traditional classes. Does a ranger really make sense in space? Probably not. So, I think as DMs/GMs we kind of need to be flexible enough to understand that setting has to dictate those race/class options.
In general my approach would be that it depends on the setting.
Though even if the setting accomodated it I hate flyers, furries and monster-type races like Yuan-ti. They're more of a pain than anything else. Though, you could say the same about changelings, but a large part of it is the player I guess.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
As it happens, I've been recently thinking about how the Nazgul are like Armorer/Artificers with a dip in shadow magic. They have martial abilities but use suggestion and command spells to dominate (and if you set them on fire they retreat expeditiously in a spectral form).
On topic, I've yet to ban anything from the table. I'm pretty open to whatever the players want to introduce - I'm not sure what it would take for me to say no. If there's a seeming contradiction, that's usually something you can spend some time justifying storywise and maybe that leads to something interesting.
I allow all official races in my games with no exceptions. Personally, I find that it is not hard to explain how a race such as a Fairy can be in your world if you just spend a bit of time working with your player to come up with that answer together. You don't need to explain how every race fits into your homebrew world, in fact, you don't need to explain how any race fits into your homebrew world: you can just say they fit into it and not bother explaining how. That works fine, as long as your players are okay with it.
And if your players want you to explain how their "exotic" races fit into their world, it shouldn't be hard, since you only have to create explanations then for the races that your players have chosen to play. And even then, that's only if your players want you to explain that lore. And even then, that's only if you're fine with meeting their request of explaining that lore.
As for banning races for mechanical reasons, I think that it is quite simple just to modify those races mechanical stats and warn your players in advance that you are doing so. Reworking a race does not take nearly as much work as reworking a class.
With all that being said, banning races is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Not every DM wants to do work to explain or modify things, and its fine not to want things in your world without explanation. So while I never ban races in my worlds, you can feel free to do that in your games. There is nothing wrong with that, and if a player leaves your group because you banned a race they like, then more power to them; someone who leaves your game over something as small as that is not someone you would have wanted to play with anyways.
TL;DR: I don't ban races in my games, but feel free to do so in your games if you want.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Oh, I didn't realize this thread was about classes also; I ban no classes in my games because I feel that it limits my players options too much, since there is already only a small pool of classes to choose from. I honestly don't see the point of banning classes, races are one thing since there are so many of them, but there are only 13 official classes (including Artificer) and limiting 1 of 13 is a much bigger deal than limiting 1 of 40+ (including the races from M3).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is why I allow Artificers regardless of setting. They're awesome mechanically, and contrary to popular belief, do not have to be a steampunk/arcanapunk tinkerer. Literally anyone who creates magic items or imbues objects with magic is an Artificer.
[REDACTED]
Any official content is fair game at my table. Even some 3rd party content and homebrew after a careful review.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Artificers are great for any setting. I understand how the common perception was formed, based on the setting they came from. But there are thousands of ways to flavor them differently. I had a forest gnome alchemist that made every spell out of clay pots filled with various berries, slimes, and chemicals found in the woods. I'm also happy a class exists to let me finally fulfill my dream of making a wizard that focuses on magical item creation. Or a dwarf weaponsmith of the highest caliber.
I haven't played a monk in a gritty style campaign but I think in a lot of ways they are mre like a Gish than a pure martial class. Not as good at pure physical damage as pure martial classes but able to compensate for that by "magical" abilities
At level 13 a monk is able to speak and understand any spoken language, this is hte equivalent of tongues a 3rd evel spell (that can be cast on the party face), by the time a monk is immune to disease and poison using a second level spell slop on lesser restoration is rarely a problem, A party with access to goodberry (or create food and water) has no issues with nourishment.
It is interesting that what you see as a problem of having a monk with mobility I see as a problem with flanking. I have no problem with a monk using a feat to be able to avoid opp attacks (without burning ki) because that is at the expense onincreasing their dex or wis. Instead I think the optional flanking rules make it far to easy to get advantage negating features such as rage. I never use flanking rules in my games.
If the party get disarmed the spell casters will still be able to cast spells spells like eldritch blast, sacred flame, fire bolt and toll the dead all do not require material components so can still be cast even if their focus / component puch has been taken away. In my campaigns by level 6 most of the martials have a magic weapon so the monk having magin unarmed attacks is needed to keep up though I can understand in a campaign where magical weapons are non-existant or extremely rare the abilty to overcome magic resistance is huge.
Stunning strike is the biggest feature that a monk gets, at least before diamond soul. I agree stunning an enemy for a single round is huge but spells like sleep, hold person and hypnotic pattern can do the same to multiple enemies (hold person being upcast to affect more than one creature)
I have taken a monk to level 20 most of the enemies were non-humanoid so being attacked by arrows only came up once or twice, disease never came up though I admit immunity to poison helped significantly onseveral occassions.
I think one of the reasons monks are considered underpowered is a lot of their features can be got in other ways in books published after the PHB. Several races can ignore fall damage some have flight which means if they "fall" they can get back up to where the rest of the party are Others like symic hybrid have a feature the equivalent to slow fall. (Legacy) Yuan Te are immune to poison and so on.
Yeah....that's kind of an odd statement to make. If you factor in the subclasses (archetypes etc) there's 100+ subclasses. Heck, even if we go with just the 13, you need to add in the possibility of multi/dual classing and that will take you up to 13 'pure' classes, and 78 options for characters with two classes. That alone is 91 options as far as classes come in.
The idea that it is a small pool isn't entirely correct. There's a lot of options available. Multiply the 91 options by the 9 core races in PHB and you're already at 819 possible class/race options.
Given that, do you still think it's too limiting? Or perhaps you don't go in for dual/multi classing?
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Yes, I do. Subclasses and classes are very different. Including subclasses in with classes when we were supposed to be talking about the latter ignores the simple reality that A) subclasses are only a few features B) they don't actually massively alter the way you play a class, just change it slightly and C) You only even start to get subclass features after you have already put multiple levels into the base class (for most classes at least).
If you are finding every single combination of classes, subclasses, and multiclassing combos then yes, there will be plenty of options. But not only does banning a class limit the amount of all of the other options as well, but it is banning options for the biggest and most informative part of your character. There are not many classes in D&D, but there are many more races it. Yes, I know that you can make numerous different character combinations, but you can do that with races as one of the parts of your combinations too, and if you count them in then the options explode.
Classes, subclasses, and multiclass combinations are all very different things. There are only 13 official classes, and yes, banning one of them significantly reduces the amount of options in that regard much more than it would if you banned 1 of the 40+ races. Classes are the defining feature of your character, whether or not you think that should be so, and banning options for that defining feature means people will be forced to pick the most important part of their character from a small, limited pool. I don't think arguing that your players should multiclass or find other ways to customize their character is a fair justification for severely limiting the amount of choice they have when picking the much more important and much less customizable option of their character.
But anyways, you play how you want at your table. Your fun doesn't hurt mine or my players fun after all.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.These are all good points - but I suppose I should clarify that my style of grit also removes lots of the overpowered spells. When I say "overpowered", I mean OP in terms of a gritty realism setting. Spells like Goodberry, for example, are heavily modified in my world. Even Lesser Restoration and Remove Curse are far too simplified for a gritty realism campaign, because it completely negates the survival stakes. Spells like Comprehend Languages and Tongues have also been modified to make them require more precious resources to cast. Because, in the same vein, this magic just completely erases the distinction in languages that PCs know - both racially and from backstory. Further to that, I completely removed Primordial as a language that you can choose to learn. Since it's straight elemental chaos, only Genasi can speak it in my setting.
So, yes, I agree with you that Monk is not really strong for 5E. My group doesn't play 5E - it is essentially 40% 5E and 60% homebrew/house rules for increased immersion. After the first year of playing 5E, we've found that it is way too easy and simplified. I should have clarified that point more.
From a straight Fifth Edition/non-gritty perspective, I agree with you completely.