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.
So at this point then I have to ask, why 5e?
I see this time and time again. There are hundreds of TTRPGs out there. Most are far better for other settings than D&D (any edition is). I come to D&D for high fantasy and similar because that's what the ruleset works best for.
If I want gritty urban underworld, I go to blades in the dark. If I want horror, I go to something like Dread, or Cthulu.
I really find it difficult to understand why people constantly try to hammer D&D into a form and purpose that it's not really built for. I mean I could say the same about the writer of the recent books. I don't see why Spelljammer wasn't a system in and of itself rather than a supplement to the core rules of D&D. So I would love to know what piece of the puzzle I'm missig here.
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.
So at this point then I have to ask, why 5e?
I see this time and time again. There are hundreds of TTRPGs out there. Most are far better for other settings than D&D (any edition is). I come to D&D for high fantasy and similar because that's what the ruleset works best for.
If I want gritty urban underworld, I go to blades in the dark. If I want horror, I go to something like Dread, or Cthulu.
I really find it difficult to understand why people constantly try to hammer D&D into a form and purpose that it's not really built for. I mean I could say the same about the writer of the recent books. I don't see why Spelljammer wasn't a system in and of itself rather than a supplement to the core rules of D&D. So I would love to know what piece of the puzzle I'm missig here.
Well, I don't think it is fair to say that people "hammer D&D into a form and purpose that it's not really built for" because that is at odds with the spirit of the game. D&D has always been a game of modification, interpretation, and fluid mechanics in the sense that you are supposed to use what you want and disregard what you don't want. This is essentially the takeaway that promotes the idea that everyone's D&D game is different - which I wholeheartedly agree with. If I wanted something that was universal and unchanging, well, that's what video games are for.
My points above are centered around the idea that 5E RAW is far too easy and simple for my group's style of play. Fundamentally, we enjoy the foundation of the game and use just about all of its core components, but with our own twist. For example, we take key ideas from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions and implement them into 5E. Additionally, 5e has the best introduction aspects to the game, where the rules have been simplified for ease of play (which has attracted so many more players since previous editions). After a time though, my group realized we needed to dial it up at our table in order to have the best experience.
Lastly, we love the setting and lore of the D&D cosmos, and so we don't have an interest in another TTRPG. To your point on Spelljammer, this is completely at odds with what my group enjoys and we don't play it, but I think it is still D&D because there are players who love that style.
These are general rules, but if I was running theros or Valeros (one of my homebrew worlds, sort of a modern fantasy world) neither of which have dwarves, dwarves are banned.
The only subclasses I would ban are Twilight and Peace Domain Cleric. Both of them trivialize most combat encounters, and if you want to challenge them you could easily make it deadly by accident.
I don't have any issues with the published races and classes. I wouldn't allow UA or homebrew unless it was something I created myself.
However, the DM is building a world and some races may not exist in that world. Some classes could be non-existent or only used for rare NPCs. So, for world building reasons I might leave out certain races or classes to make a more interesting game world but not for balance reasons.
For example, folks who ban Twilight clerics might find themselves also banning X druid/1 life cleric using the healing power of supreme goodberries. :). Where do you stop? Everyone's opinion of balance differs and there isn't any ability in the published material that I couldn't work with as a DM.
I allow all official content anything beyond that I have to review and play test before I approve or disapprove of it. I really think that people over react to stuff. People think flight is broken at low levels its really not especially when the bandits have jet packs & long range cross bows .
I also love d̶̡̼̥̻͙̣̼̿͂͐͘ę̴̢̨̛̼̙̤̻̞̠̗̳̝̦̹̹̦͍̉̏͛̽͠͠sţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏ru̸̮̭̪̠͆̑̍́̈́̑̾̒̑̂̕ͅc̶̢̜͓̮̩͎͕̄́͑̃̈͋̈͌̑̽͠ͅͅţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏io̵̪̭̞̗̝͙̝̬̥͕̒ͅn̸̨͖̳͓͍̜̬̗̪̜̪̗̺͆̏̆̊́̈́̿̎̅̈͠͝͝ in my campaigns! In other words, i'm an evil DM.
In my Princes of the Apocalypse game that is ending soon, these were the allowed races. They are the races from the three books I allowed (PHB, SCAG, XGTE) as well as a couple of extras.
One of the decisions I made was "no underdark races." I didn't want to deal with hurt feelings from players when townsfolk run their drow out of town at the front of a torch-and-pitchforks mob. :-)
So at this point then I have to ask, why 5e?
I see this time and time again. There are hundreds of TTRPGs out there. Most are far better for other settings than D&D (any edition is). I come to D&D for high fantasy and similar because that's what the ruleset works best for.
If I want gritty urban underworld, I go to blades in the dark. If I want horror, I go to something like Dread, or Cthulu.
I really find it difficult to understand why people constantly try to hammer D&D into a form and purpose that it's not really built for. I mean I could say the same about the writer of the recent books. I don't see why Spelljammer wasn't a system in and of itself rather than a supplement to the core rules of D&D. So I would love to know what piece of the puzzle I'm missig here.
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.
Well, I don't think it is fair to say that people "hammer D&D into a form and purpose that it's not really built for" because that is at odds with the spirit of the game. D&D has always been a game of modification, interpretation, and fluid mechanics in the sense that you are supposed to use what you want and disregard what you don't want. This is essentially the takeaway that promotes the idea that everyone's D&D game is different - which I wholeheartedly agree with. If I wanted something that was universal and unchanging, well, that's what video games are for.
My points above are centered around the idea that 5E RAW is far too easy and simple for my group's style of play. Fundamentally, we enjoy the foundation of the game and use just about all of its core components, but with our own twist. For example, we take key ideas from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions and implement them into 5E. Additionally, 5e has the best introduction aspects to the game, where the rules have been simplified for ease of play (which has attracted so many more players since previous editions). After a time though, my group realized we needed to dial it up at our table in order to have the best experience.
Lastly, we love the setting and lore of the D&D cosmos, and so we don't have an interest in another TTRPG. To your point on Spelljammer, this is completely at odds with what my group enjoys and we don't play it, but I think it is still D&D because there are players who love that style.
I ban anything that could not realistically exist in the setting (mostly applies to races and the artificer class)
I ban twilight in most campaigns.
I play arrocockra with 30ft fly speed.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
Out of curiosity, what's the theme of your setting?
[REDACTED]
These are general rules, but if I was running theros or Valeros (one of my homebrew worlds, sort of a modern fantasy world) neither of which have dwarves, dwarves are banned.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
The only subclasses I would ban are Twilight and Peace Domain Cleric. Both of them trivialize most combat encounters, and if you want to challenge them you could easily make it deadly by accident.
I don't have any issues with the published races and classes. I wouldn't allow UA or homebrew unless it was something I created myself.
However, the DM is building a world and some races may not exist in that world. Some classes could be non-existent or only used for rare NPCs. So, for world building reasons I might leave out certain races or classes to make a more interesting game world but not for balance reasons.
For example, folks who ban Twilight clerics might find themselves also banning X druid/1 life cleric using the healing power of supreme goodberries. :). Where do you stop? Everyone's opinion of balance differs and there isn't any ability in the published material that I couldn't work with as a DM.
I allow all official content anything beyond that I have to review and play test before I approve or disapprove of it. I really think that people over react to stuff. People think flight is broken at low levels its really not especially when the bandits have jet packs & long range cross bows .
I don't "ban" races or classes, but with some of them, I make them rare to find someone to have a specific race or class.
Monsters: Brathkal
Weapons: Sword of Ni , Bow of Ni
Spells: Zone of Ni
I also love d̶̡̼̥̻͙̣̼̿͂͐͘ę̴̢̨̛̼̙̤̻̞̠̗̳̝̦̹̹̦͍̉̏͛̽͠͠sţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏ru̸̮̭̪̠͆̑̍́̈́̑̾̒̑̂̕ͅc̶̢̜͓̮̩͎͕̄́͑̃̈͋̈͌̑̽͠ͅͅţ̵̢̼̹̭̖͔͎̞̪͇͚̞̇̀̇̀̒͂̇̍͊̏io̵̪̭̞̗̝͙̝̬̥͕̒ͅn̸̨͖̳͓͍̜̬̗̪̜̪̗̺͆̏̆̊́̈́̿̎̅̈͠͝͝ in my campaigns! In other words, i'm an evil DM.
In my Princes of the Apocalypse game that is ending soon, these were the allowed races. They are the races from the three books I allowed (PHB, SCAG, XGTE) as well as a couple of extras.
One of the decisions I made was "no underdark races." I didn't want to deal with hurt feelings from players when townsfolk run their drow out of town at the front of a torch-and-pitchforks mob. :-)