Part of the problem as I see it is that D&D combat is a bit too... abstracted to satisfactorily model the kind of combat people are talking about. In my experience with both unarmed and armed combat blocking, parrying, and dodging are a huge part of the tactical toolkit, and D&D's simplification of all that down to a fixed AC and the all-or-nothing Dodge action simply doesn't *work* for Kung Fu movies. What's happening in those movies is a lot of localized maneuvering, that fits a lot within the 5'/10' ranges.
The only way I can think of making this work is change the Dodge action to get it more granular somehow for Warrior-types.
Just spitballing here: Warriors, being primarily trained for combat and rather than giving up all actions, can give disadvantage to a single incoming attack by using one attack of their own to parry/dodge/whatever. So, say for a Monk that has... four attacks this round for whatever reason, they can strike twice, and give disadvantage on two incoming attacks? I'm not sure about this, it's early in the morning and I'm still a bit fuzzy on how well that would work.
Armor: None Weapons: Simple weapons, shortswords Tools: Choose one type of artisan’s tools or one musical instrument Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity Skills: Choose two from Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Religion, and Stealth
You didn't double-check the class' proficiencies, did you?
Have you ever taken boxing classes or martial arts classes? Spacing is a huge thing in a fight. Out boxing is an entire style of boxing that is about keeping the opponent at a reach. It may not be literal hit and run away, but spacing and keeping out of retaliation range is a factor.
I have. And while reach is meaningful, real fights that don't happen on a ring begin and end within seconds, and within a punch's range or closer, usually with one side knocking the other to the ground as soon as possible and then just beating and kicking the shit out of a downed opponent. And even if you consider boxing in a reglamented environment, you never fully break the distance and run around the ring, and that's literally what we're talking about here, running in and out up to 60 damn feet, delivering a punch, turning around and running away so that the enemy can't catch you. The monk class was created to captivate the image of a martial artist from kung fu movies, not Road Runner harassing Willy the Coyote.
Nobody else here is talking about constantly running in and out of melee; burning Ki points every turn and consuming the monk's bonus action. That's all you. You invented this argument out of whole cloth, and I can't come up with a rational reason why.
Part of the problem as I see it is that D&D combat is a bit too... abstracted to satisfactorily model the kind of combat people are talking about. In my experience with both unarmed and armed combat blocking, parrying, and dodging are a huge part of the tactical toolkit, and D&D's simplification of all that down to a fixed AC and the all-or-nothing Dodge action simply doesn't *work* for Kung Fu movies. What's happening in those movies is a lot of localized maneuvering, that fits a lot within the 5'/10' ranges.
The only way I can think of making this work is change the Dodge action to get it more granular somehow for Warrior-types.
Just spitballing here: Warriors, being primarily trained for combat and rather than giving up all actions, can give disadvantage to a single incoming attack by using one attack of their own to parry/dodge/whatever. So, say for a Monk that has... four attacks this round for whatever reason, they can strike twice, and give disadvantage on two incoming attacks? I'm not sure about this, it's early in the morning and I'm still a bit fuzzy on how well that would work.
I agree that we often fall into the mistake of trying to think of combat as a series of specific moves when DnD is intentionally very abstract. You see that a lot in proposed changes to martial abilities, weapons, and armor. It's tough to sometimes balance what people want with the abstraction of the game.
I also love the idea of Warriors getting to trade individual attacks for defense against specific enemies. That's a neat concept worth considering how it might work. And I like the visual. For Monks specifically, patient defense does already capture this idea pretty well. But a back up version when you're out of ki might be nice too.
Armor: None Weapons: Simple weapons, shortswords Tools: Choose one type of artisan’s tools or one musical instrument Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity Skills: Choose two from Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Religion, and Stealth
You didn't double-check the class' proficiencies, did you?
I don't see your point. If you want to use bows, there's Kensei subclass that makes longbow scale with Martial Arts feature and lets you use bonus action to add 1d4 damage to every shot, not to mention other kensei features. It seems that you're not very familiar with monk subclasses)
Nobody else here is talking about constantly running in and out of melee; burning Ki points every turn and consuming the monk's bonus action. That's all you. You invented this argument out of whole cloth, and I can't come up with a rational reason why.
You're not reading the thread. Quote below. Also, you should convey your point clearly.
Note that EVERY SINGLE monk subclass give them a unique way to avoid getting hit. Open Hand -> Flurry of Blows takes away the enemy's reaction letting you escape with your super fast movement. Drunken Master -> Flurry of Blows gives you a free Disengage letting you escape with your super fast movement. 4 Elements / Astral -> increased reach lets you avoid entering melee to begin with Sun Soul -> ranged option allows you to strafe from a distance. Shadow -> BA teleport out of reach.
All monks can use shortbows if they want to be at range, sure they aren't monk weapons but the only class feature that depends on wielding a monk weapon is Martial Arts which is one unarmed strike per round that the monk probably wouldn't use anyway. So every monk is totally capable at being at range if they want to save ki. However, IME monk typically want to use ki because it doesn't run out that fast, and they get it all back on a SR. Sure if the DM spams easy combats at the party and they party never SRs then monk doesn't get to use their cool features, but neither do warlocks or fighters, so monk isn't significantly worse off than either of them (just be a kensai, use a longbow + SS and you'll handily out damage the warlock and matchvthe fighter).
Armor: None Weapons: Simple weapons, shortswords Tools: Choose one type of artisan’s tools or one musical instrument Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity Skills: Choose two from Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Religion, and Stealth
You didn't double-check the class' proficiencies, did you?
I don't see your point. If you want to use bows, there's Kensei subclass that makes longbow scale with Martial Arts feature and lets you use bonus action to add 1d4 damage to every shot, not to mention other kensei features. It seems that you're not very familiar with monk subclasses)
Nobody else here is talking about constantly running in and out of melee; burning Ki points every turn and consuming the monk's bonus action. That's all you. You invented this argument out of whole cloth, and I can't come up with a rational reason why.
You're not reading the thread. Quote below. Also, you should convey your point clearly.
Note that EVERY SINGLE monk subclass give them a unique way to avoid getting hit. Open Hand -> Flurry of Blows takes away the enemy's reaction letting you escape with your super fast movement. Drunken Master -> Flurry of Blows gives you a free Disengage letting you escape with your super fast movement. 4 Elements / Astral -> increased reach lets you avoid entering melee to begin with Sun Soul -> ranged option allows you to strafe from a distance. Shadow -> BA teleport out of reach.
I have been reading the thread, K. It's you who can't keep up. Monks are proficient with a shortbow. Everyone here knows this. You're the one who chose to disregard that.
The reality is not every monk is going to play using Way of the Kensei. For those that don't, they have a dedicated ranged option. Is it ideal? No. Neither is a barbarian who's best ranged option─at the moment─is to throw a javelin at their enemies. If you want to talk tactics, then you'd best know all of their tools. Such a monk could absolutely make an excellent skirmisher; because ranged attacks are how skirmishers tend to engage. But the monk prefers melee combat. It can't use Martial Arts and Stunning Strike otherwise. Again, everyone knows this.
Which makes your insistence that the monk, as a skirmisher, doesn't make sense...doesn't make sense. Because nobody here is arguing it does. Skirmishing isn't punching someone and running away. The monk is a flexible switch-hitter that doesn't excel in any one role, but it can switch to one of several roles; depending on the situation. It can go all-out on attacking, with Flurry of Blows. It can hold a position with Patient Defense. And it can use Step of the Wind (and its Unarmored Movement Improvement) to safely get places other party members can't.
Quite frankly, I think you lost the plot when you went all anime with your very first post on page 1 of this thread. I think your idea of the monk is just so alien to what it is and has been that you don't understand what you're asking for.
It is 100% possible to play a melee skirmisher, skirmisher's are not required to be ranged. I'm playing one right now in as a melee rogue in a long running campaign. Because this is a game with a party. The paladin or barbarian stands toe-to-toe with the enemy, the skirmisher darts in and out of melee then the enemy either has to take an AoO from the paladin or barb (that could hurt a lot) or it has to attack the pally/barb rather than the skirmisher. I find it so hard to believe that so many people just stand still in melee, I mean half the fun of playing a melee character is the importance of positioning and all the things you can do with that...
It is 100% possible to play a melee skirmisher, skirmisher's are not required to be ranged. I'm playing one right now in as a melee rogue in a long running campaign. Because this is a game with a party. The paladin or barbarian stands toe-to-toe with the enemy, the skirmisher darts in and out of melee then the enemy either has to take an AoO from the paladin or barb (that could hurt a lot) or it has to attack the pally/barb rather than the skirmisher. I find it so hard to believe that so many people just stand still in melee, I mean half the fun of playing a melee character is the importance of positioning and all the things you can do with that...
I never said a melee skirmisher wasn't possible, only that it isn't how skirmishing is normally done. The swashbuckler archetype is a sort of skirmisher. Every enemy it attacks, regardless of whether these attacks hit, can't make an Opportunity Attack against them when they withdraw that same turn. And the scout archetype, which I think is designed primarily for ranged combat, literally has the Skirmisher feature. But not everyone can do these things, and you do a good job of highlighting how a party can work together to facilitate that kind of play.
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
This is fine for a warrior monk style character but
Monks are supposed to be much more than physical training, they are academics.
Furthermore the physical training of martial artists in the real world does not always translate into exceptional fighting skills.
A Chinese MMA brawler who fought in the ring went to the Shaolin and Wu Shu Temples around China and challenged many of the so called masters to a MMA style fight allowing them to use their long taught secrets.
He ended up embarrassing all of them. The problem is while the masters did spar and train and could do many things the MMA fighter could never do they had very little actual real one on one combat experiences with someone dedicated to taking them down. Most of the techniques were never used outside of opponents not in the Kung Fu schools. The MMA fighter, involved in dozens of actual fights in the ring and no telling how many sparring contests had more actual skill keeping hjmself alive and unhurt and destroying the enemy. So he excelled over them in an actual contest because he was better trained at combat.
This is the difference between a soldier and a warrior, the bread and butter the fighter class is supposed to represent and the gymnast or shaolin monk that trains the body.
(Note: He was so successful the gub'ment got angry and labeled him a thought criminal for it and destroyed his social credit score but that is another matter)
For this reason I think Monk's in game should be d8. There fighting abilities should be mystical. They can run up walls, hide in plain site, commune with the akashic record and get mystical insight and divinations. The theoretically should have their own spell list with nothing but divination spells perhaps. They should also be literate, have access to any knowledge skill etc. along with the iron body and other techniques.
But in battle the fighter class should be superior in one on one combat. This used to be true when there were many more combat feats and differentiation in to hit charts.
Now that WOTC gets rid of that (and that is fine it is just mechanics, you make them do what you want) they should work in more options and powers for fighters that beef them up and make them useful.
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
Sentinel isn't necessary for this play style, skimishers aren't squishy wizards that will die from 1 hit. It is typically worth it to take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50% via an AoO. And when you are starting to get low HP wise you can Step of the Wind out to safety and swap to a shortbow for ranged attacks or pour the rest of your ki into Stunning Strike as if you're about to die then chances are the whole party will need a SR after the fight anyway (unless your DMs a dick and having the enemies focus-fire on the dude in robes who isn't doing the bulk of the damage to them).
When did "run away so an enemy has to take an AoO to hit me" or "run away so the enemy can't hit me" become a grand strategy? Perhaps this whole argument is just a symptom of people thinking monk is "the easiest class" and that martials "just run towards enemies and attack". Neither of these things are true, but both of which are popular talking points among the "optimizer" channels. To be an effective monk, you need as much strategy and tactics as a rogue.
I have been reading the thread, K. It's you who can't keep up. Monks are proficient with a shortbow. Everyone here knows this. You're the one who chose to disregard that.
The reality is not every monk is going to play using Way of the Kensei. For those that don't, they have a dedicated ranged option. Is it ideal? No. Neither is a barbarian who's best ranged option─at the moment─is to throw a javelin at their enemies. If you want to talk tactics, then you'd best know all of their tools. Such a monk could absolutely make an excellent skirmisher; because ranged attacks are how skirmishers tend to engage. But the monk prefers melee combat. It can't use Martial Arts and Stunning Strike otherwise. Again, everyone knows this.
Which makes your insistence that the monk, as a skirmisher, doesn't make sense...doesn't make sense. Because nobody here is arguing it does. Skirmishing isn't punching someone and running away. The monk is a flexible switch-hitter that doesn't excel in any one role, but it can switch to one of several roles; depending on the situation. It can go all-out on attacking, with Flurry of Blows. It can hold a position with Patient Defense. And it can use Step of the Wind (and its Unarmored Movement Improvement) to safely get places other party members can't.
Quite frankly, I think you lost the plot when you went all anime with your very first post on page 1 of this thread. I think your idea of the monk is just so alien to what it is and has been that you don't understand what you're asking for.
Excellent skirmishers with only two attacks for d6+Dex damage and no features that they could apply to these attacks? Cool, cool. Call me back when you find people actually playing like this) If you want to talk tactics, consider using the class features in combat. And be competitive at that.
But again, you're not making your point clear. Argument for the sake of argument. You put an unwarranted amount of effort avoiding making a point on how monks are supposed to be played, why it's not working, and how it can be fixed. Which is a point of this thread. What are you even trying to say?
BTW, "you went all anime with your very first post on page 1 of this thread" (where exactly did I anyway, and if I did, why is that a bad thing?) coming from a person who said "It's Dungeons & Dragons, dude. Nobody cares about realism" one page earlier is pretty funny)
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
Sentinel isn't necessary for this play style, skimishers aren't squishy wizards that will die from 1 hit. It is typically worth it to take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50% via an AoO. And when you are starting to get low HP wise you can Step of the Wind out to safety and swap to a shortbow for ranged attacks or pour the rest of your ki into Stunning Strike as if you're about to die then chances are the whole party will need a SR after the fight anyway (unless your DMs a dick and having the enemies focus-fire on the dude in robes who isn't doing the bulk of the damage to them).
When did "run away so an enemy has to take an AoO to hit me" or "run away so the enemy can't hit me" become a grand strategy? Perhaps this whole argument is just a symptom of people thinking monk is "the easiest class" and that martials "just run towards enemies and attack". Neither of these things are true, but both of which are popular talking points among the "optimizer" channels. To be an effective monk, you need as much strategy and tactics as a rogue.
This is turning out longer than I initially intended, so I'm apologizing in advance.
Unless I've missed a class feature in the last six years, Sentinel is necessary to make an Opportunity Attack against a target that attacks someone else. And I never said running away was a grand strategy. It's just dependent on factors. You need to be able to withdraw and still hit them. Do you want to keep making melee attacks, which you can get more of, or are you content with ranged attacks? Can they still reach you? If so, running may not matter. The types of enemies, and the nature of any given combat, should be expected to vary. Sometimes, they can turn on a dime with reinforcements or environmental changes.
Let's revisit to your example from before. If running away provokes an OA from the enemy, and taking that OA provokes another OA from a party member, then why run? The enemy can't make more than one attack against the monk, anyway. And if they attack the monk, they'll just take more damage from the barbarian/paladin and go down more quickly. They're better off just hitting the barbarian/fighter, unless they think they can drop the monk in that one turn, so the monk is probably safe. Or they'll run, because they have two enemies in their face. Not every fight should be to the death, and it's reasonable to assume self-preservation.
Heck, the monk could have Sentinel and use Patient Defense to keep their defenses up. The enemy might not want to hit the monk, because Disadvantage, but if they don't they'll get smacked and possibly [condition]stunned[condition]. My point, here, is anecdotes and hypotheticals are unhelpful. We can keep slinging them back and forth until the heat death of the universe, and we won't actually get anywhere. The only thing we can agree on is that monks do require some strategy and tactics. I called them a scalpel just a page or two ago, and I stand by that statement.
That said, I don't fully know where your head is at. You're asking people to, "take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50%," because of an Opportunity Attack. This isn't chess where you intentionally sacrifice a piece for a better position. You're dealing with maybe a half-dozen people, all of whom have their own desires and agendas. People don't like seeing their characters get hit and go down. And I dislike conversations about DPR and "optimization" on principle because D&D isn't competitive. At least, it shouldn't be. I only know how to have those conversations because I want to understand people. Because I can't meaningfully converse with them if I don't.
(Unfortunately, I don't think everyone wants to be understood. I think they want confusion because they think it makes them look more intelligent by comparison. And people will pretend, to fake it until they make it, so they also look intelligent. I've seen/heard, "You just don't get it," enough to last me several lifetimes.)
I think your experience and expectations are different enough that it's causing some friction. I've said in other threads that Sentinel is a trick you can pull off once, maybe twice, in a fight. You can't reliably count on mooks triggering it every turn. Monks can skirmish, as can a lot of other classes. They can also frontline, as can a lot of other classes. That's the real strength of a monk. It can do a lot and help out in a pinch, but it doesn't quite do everything as well as other classes can. The monk can't specialize like they can, and D&D rewards specialization. I get how that can be frustrating and makes the monk look weak, by comparison. I don't think people yelling about how playing it a certain way is wrong or doesn't make sense is remotely helpful. That tells me their biases are getting in the way of having an open mind. And that's something I actively try to avoid.
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
Sentinel isn't necessary for this play style, skimishers aren't squishy wizards that will die from 1 hit. It is typically worth it to take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50% via an AoO. And when you are starting to get low HP wise you can Step of the Wind out to safety and swap to a shortbow for ranged attacks or pour the rest of your ki into Stunning Strike as if you're about to die then chances are the whole party will need a SR after the fight anyway (unless your DMs a dick and having the enemies focus-fire on the dude in robes who isn't doing the bulk of the damage to them).
When did "run away so an enemy has to take an AoO to hit me" or "run away so the enemy can't hit me" become a grand strategy? Perhaps this whole argument is just a symptom of people thinking monk is "the easiest class" and that martials "just run towards enemies and attack". Neither of these things are true, but both of which are popular talking points among the "optimizer" channels. To be an effective monk, you need as much strategy and tactics as a rogue.
This is turning out longer than I initially intended, so I'm apologizing in advance.
Unless I've missed a class feature in the last six years, Sentinel is necessary to make an Opportunity Attack against a target that attacks someone else. And I never said running away was a grand strategy. It's just dependent on factors. You need to be able to withdraw and still hit them. Do you want to keep making melee attacks, which you can get more of, or are you content with ranged attacks? Can they still reach you? If so, running may not matter. The types of enemies, and the nature of any given combat, should be expected to vary. Sometimes, they can turn on a dime with reinforcements or environmental changes.
Let's revisit to your example from before. If running away provokes an OA from the enemy, and taking that OA provokes another OA from a party member, then why run? The enemy can't make more than one attack against the monk, anyway. And if they attack the monk, they'll just take more damage from the barbarian/paladin and go down more quickly. They're better off just hitting the barbarian/fighter, unless they think they can drop the monk in that one turn, so the monk is probably safe. Or they'll run, because they have two enemies in their face. Not every fight should be to the death, and it's reasonable to assume self-preservation.
Heck, the monk could have Sentinel and use Patient Defense to keep their defenses up. The enemy might not want to hit the monk, because Disadvantage, but if they don't they'll get smacked and possibly [condition]stunned[condition]. My point, here, is anecdotes and hypotheticals are unhelpful. We can keep slinging them back and forth until the heat death of the universe, and we won't actually get anywhere. The only thing we can agree on is that monks do require some strategy and tactics. I called them a scalpel just a page or two ago, and I stand by that statement.
That said, I don't fully know where your head is at. You're asking people to, "take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50%," because of an Opportunity Attack. This isn't chess where you intentionally sacrifice a piece for a better position. You're dealing with maybe a half-dozen people, all of whom have their own desires and agendas. People don't like seeing their characters get hit and go down. And I dislike conversations about DPR and "optimization" on principle because D&D isn't competitive. At least, it shouldn't be. I only know how to have those conversations because I want to understand people. Because I can't meaningfully converse with them if I don't.
(Unfortunately, I don't think everyone wants to be understood. I think they want confusion because they think it makes them look more intelligent by comparison. And people will pretend, to fake it until they make it, so they also look intelligent. I've seen/heard, "You just don't get it," enough to last me several lifetimes.)
I think your experience and expectations are different enough that it's causing some friction. I've said in other threads that Sentinel is a trick you can pull off once, maybe twice, in a fight. You can't reliably count on mooks triggering it every turn. Monks can skirmish, as can a lot of other classes. They can also frontline, as can a lot of other classes. That's the real strength of a monk. It can do a lot and help out in a pinch, but it doesn't quite do everything as well as other classes can. The monk can't specialize like they can, and D&D rewards specialization. I get how that can be frustrating and makes the monk look weak, by comparison. I don't think people yelling about how playing it a certain way is wrong or doesn't make sense is remotely helpful. That tells me their biases are getting in the way of having an open mind. And that's something I actively try to avoid.
Dear Lord! Somebody is making a decision that could potentially reduce their hitpoints in exchange for a chance to do more damage?! They're using strategy and managing their resources to defeat their enemies with minimal loss! What is this, CHESS?! Filthy optimizers. When will they learn.
Also, literally nobody brought up Sentinel. Being out of reach from somebody who is next to an ally means, most likely, that if they choose to move towards you they will leave your ally's reach. This provokes an Opportunity Attack, Sentinel or no Sentinel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It looks like there are several playstyles that should be supported in the next version of monk. Even if a style does not appeal to you, other players would like to try it.
Frontliner melee combatant: Able to take a load of hits so the rest of the party does not have to. Also able to dish out sufficient damage.
Hit & run: Making melee attacks, then getting out of range preferably without taking opportunity attacks.
Ranged: Avoiding melee, dealing damage with darts/bows/shuriken.
Grappling
Stunbot (or the equivalent with other statuses)
Under current 5E rules, the fontliner playstyle is the most difficult. Monks do not have the AC comparable to heavy armor + shield or the HP compared to any other frontliner. Only BA Dodge currently makes this doable by burning a finite resource. Changing Deflect Missiles to Deflect Attack makes a monk frontliner feasible while helping other strategies.
The hit & run style is tricky in 5E. It typically involves spending Ki one way or another. A resource-less disengage or equivalent helps this strategy and the ranged strategy.
The ranged strategy is helped by initializing the martial art dice to D6, which helps darts. The new rules on equipping weapons per attack also makes throwing feasible. In general, the Monk's mobility is what defines this strategy. It would be nice if the Stunning Strike (or equivalent) worked at range similar to Battlemaster.
The grappling strategy will work as long as WIS or DEX can be used for the grapple escape DC.
The stunbot equivalent strategy should be able to target at least one other save besides CON, hopefully with a variety of statuses to choose from.
It looks like there are several playstyles that should be supported in the next version of monk. Even if a style does not appeal to you, other players would like to try it.
Frontliner melee combatant: Able to take a load of hits so the rest of the party does not have to. Also able to dish out sufficient damage.
Hit & run: Making melee attacks, then getting out of range preferably without taking opportunity attacks.
Ranged: Avoiding melee, dealing damage with darts/bows/shuriken.
Grappling
Stunbot (or the equivalent with other statuses)
Under current 5E rules, the fontliner playstyle is the most difficult. Monks do not have the AC comparable to heavy armor + shield or the HP compared to any other frontliner. Only BA Dodge currently makes this doable by burning a finite resource. Changing Deflect Missiles to Deflect Attack makes a monk frontliner feasible while helping other strategies.
The hit & run style is tricky in 5E. It typically involves spending Ki one way or another. A resource-less disengage or equivalent helps this strategy and the ranged strategy.
The ranged strategy is helped by initializing the martial art dice to D6, which helps darts. The new rules on equipping weapons per attack also makes throwing feasible. In general, the Monk's mobility is what defines this strategy. It would be nice if the Stunning Strike (or equivalent) worked at range similar to Battlemaster.
The grappling strategy will work as long as WIS or DEX can be used for the grapple escape DC.
The stunbot equivalent strategy should be able to target at least one other save besides CON, hopefully with a variety of statuses to choose from.
Nice list. I would like to add another one. Not sure what to call it, maybe the Scalpel? A precision striker. The Monk player in my games uses his mobility to either slip past enemies and capture/engage the boss, or to pick up fallen allies and carry them to safety. He's always moving to where he can provide the best help to the party as a whole each turn. When he tanks, he's doing it with patient defense and stunning strikes just long enough for others to regroup. I guess it's similar to Hit and Run. But more like Run and Hit, haha. He's getting himself into danger to get others out or give them the chance to catch up.
I agree that changes to the game are already helping the Monk. And there are some easy to anticipate rules they could do that would help even more. Dash and Disengage for free, use other stats for grappling, deflecting damage, etc.
But I also think the Monk is a pretty decent class already. It just takes a lot more planning each turn than some others. I like that about it and hope the new changes don't overcompensate too much.
Monk does have this assassin thing going on with their superior mobility. It is true that monks often use it to quickly get into intimate range of a squishy mage of the enemy group and knock them out quickly. However, after the pesky spellcaster is gone, the melee meat remains. And someone has to grind it. Using Step of the Wind takes up ki, unlike rogue's free disengage through Cunning Action, or swashbuckler's Fancy Footwork. Everything a monk can do other than bonk costs ki. And on early levels, which is half of most campaigns, that's a lot of time starved, playing basically as a fighter but with more movement speed.
There are certain things that must carry over from 5e to keep the feel of the class. Divine smite, Ki points, and sorcery points are 5e creations for these classes and are sure to carry over for 1dnd. It’s now a part of the class identity for the foreseeable future. Technically ki has been around longer for the monk, but the ki point per level is a 5e thing. I don’t see them moving too far from it. It’s okay if everything you do cost ki as long as everything that cost ki is meaningful. Step of the wind should just be that you don’t provoke opportunity attacks and you get the dash and jump distance bonus all for 1 ki. Also with the new 1dnd jump rules I’m guessing you dash, or jump action as a bonus action. The extra unarmed attack should be a part of the action. Flurry of blows could also be apart of the attack action. Freeing up your bonus action for any of your other monk abilities.
I feel that monks shouldn’t get armor training, but that’s more of a legacy thing. Unarmored Defense definitely needs to scale better or let one monk option with no ki point use be to add pb to AC as a bonus action. That way every turn it’s an option to fight defensively. Hopefully they do a better job of having magic items for monks earlier in 1 dnd. Also they don’t hide the one good item early on in an adventure. I’m talking about that fang that makes your unarmed strikes a +1. Now we have tattoos and a couple monk specific items. The hope Is those come online earlier in 1dnd life cycle. Maybe in PHB or DMG.
Im all in on the d10 or d12 hit dice. Also back to ki point spending feeling meaningful when you spend a ki point on patient defense to take the dodge action as a bonus action you should probably get resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage as well. That way of the disadvantage on the roll does nothing to help you still got some benefit it from it.
Monk should have a fighting style option and more weapon options. Kensai should have heavy options.
Also in the event that short rest aren’t happening monks and any class or subclass that has short rest recharge abilities should have a way to regain some of those points/abilities without the short rest. In case the DM or party refuse to let you short rest. In 5e being a monk in a party with a Paladin, Cleric and Wizard it’s hard to convince the group to take a short rest.
Short Rests haven't been spelled out in the playtest material, but there are several references to them. There are feats, class features, and spells that include them. Just not many. We're to assume they aren't changing how the short rest works from 5e at the moment. Something I'm sure is a disappointment to many.
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
Sentinel isn't necessary for this play style, skimishers aren't squishy wizards that will die from 1 hit. It is typically worth it to take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50% via an AoO. And when you are starting to get low HP wise you can Step of the Wind out to safety and swap to a shortbow for ranged attacks or pour the rest of your ki into Stunning Strike as if you're about to die then chances are the whole party will need a SR after the fight anyway (unless your DMs a dick and having the enemies focus-fire on the dude in robes who isn't doing the bulk of the damage to them).
When did "run away so an enemy has to take an AoO to hit me" or "run away so the enemy can't hit me" become a grand strategy? Perhaps this whole argument is just a symptom of people thinking monk is "the easiest class" and that martials "just run towards enemies and attack". Neither of these things are true, but both of which are popular talking points among the "optimizer" channels. To be an effective monk, you need as much strategy and tactics as a rogue.
This is turning out longer than I initially intended, so I'm apologizing in advance.
Unless I've missed a class feature in the last six years, Sentinel is necessary to make an Opportunity Attack against a target that attacks someone else. And I never said running away was a grand strategy. It's just dependent on factors. You need to be able to withdraw and still hit them. Do you want to keep making melee attacks, which you can get more of, or are you content with ranged attacks? Can they still reach you? If so, running may not matter. The types of enemies, and the nature of any given combat, should be expected to vary. Sometimes, they can turn on a dime with reinforcements or environmental changes.
Let's revisit to your example from before. If running away provokes an OA from the enemy, and taking that OA provokes another OA from a party member, then why run? The enemy can't make more than one attack against the monk, anyway. And if they attack the monk, they'll just take more damage from the barbarian/paladin and go down more quickly. They're better off just hitting the barbarian/fighter, unless they think they can drop the monk in that one turn, so the monk is probably safe. Or they'll run, because they have two enemies in their face. Not every fight should be to the death, and it's reasonable to assume self-preservation.
Heck, the monk could have Sentinel and use Patient Defense to keep their defenses up. The enemy might not want to hit the monk, because Disadvantage, but if they don't they'll get smacked and possibly [condition]stunned[condition]. My point, here, is anecdotes and hypotheticals are unhelpful. We can keep slinging them back and forth until the heat death of the universe, and we won't actually get anywhere. The only thing we can agree on is that monks do require some strategy and tactics. I called them a scalpel just a page or two ago, and I stand by that statement.
That said, I don't fully know where your head is at. You're asking people to, "take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50%," because of an Opportunity Attack. This isn't chess where you intentionally sacrifice a piece for a better position. You're dealing with maybe a half-dozen people, all of whom have their own desires and agendas. People don't like seeing their characters get hit and go down. And I dislike conversations about DPR and "optimization" on principle because D&D isn't competitive. At least, it shouldn't be. I only know how to have those conversations because I want to understand people. Because I can't meaningfully converse with them if I don't.
(Unfortunately, I don't think everyone wants to be understood. I think they want confusion because they think it makes them look more intelligent by comparison. And people will pretend, to fake it until they make it, so they also look intelligent. I've seen/heard, "You just don't get it," enough to last me several lifetimes.)
I think your experience and expectations are different enough that it's causing some friction. I've said in other threads that Sentinel is a trick you can pull off once, maybe twice, in a fight. You can't reliably count on mooks triggering it every turn. Monks can skirmish, as can a lot of other classes. They can also frontline, as can a lot of other classes. That's the real strength of a monk. It can do a lot and help out in a pinch, but it doesn't quite do everything as well as other classes can. The monk can't specialize like they can, and D&D rewards specialization. I get how that can be frustrating and makes the monk look weak, by comparison. I don't think people yelling about how playing it a certain way is wrong or doesn't make sense is remotely helpful. That tells me their biases are getting in the way of having an open mind. And that's something I actively try to avoid.
I really don't know how you've gotten here. I have NOT been talking about Sentinel at all, and I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding this very simple strategy:
Situation: There is a tanky character in your party, maybe a barbarian, maybe a fighter, maybe a paladin. They are attacking a big brute-y enemy. You are a monk with some ki available, and are close to your paladin friend and thus close to the big bad brute. You have lots of movement speed because you are a monk so you can move into and out of melee of the big bad brute if you want to. So what should you do? (a) you can move into melee with the big bad brute hit them 3-4 times and stay in melee with the big bad brute. This means the big bad brute could attack you or the paladin without having to move. There is almost no chance either of you get an AoO, and depending on the DM's thought process the BBB might decide to use all its attacks on you the monk b/c you look like an easy target or not. (b) you can move into melee with the BBB hit them several times (depending on monk subclass) and then move 15 ft away from the BBB, now the BBB can attack the paladin without having the move, the paladin has more AC and HP that you so this means the BBB probably won't hurt them as badly as you would have been hurt if the BBB attacked you, or the BBB can move 10 ft and attack you this movement will provoke an AoO from the paladin (bringing their 2 attacks per round up to 3) but you'll end up more hurt than the paladin would have if the BBB attacked the paladin (this is a trade: enemy deals more damage but your party also deals more damage). (c) you can move into melee with the big bad brute hit them twice then use Patient Defense and continue standing next to the BBB. If the DM decides the BBB goes after you b/c you look like an easy target, you now are probably going to get hit less than if the BBB had attacked the paladin because BBB has disadvantage to hit you. But you'll still get hit some. (this is again a trade: you do less damage b/c you use Patient defense rather than attacking but the enemy also deals less damage), or the BBB could choose to attack the paladin b/c you're now harder to hit than them, this is still better than the BBB attacking you without Patient Defense but less so that if you had been attacked.
This isn't some grand chess strategy requiring you to think 7 moves ahead. It's simply thinking about what the enemies could do on their next turn based on the situation at the end of your turn. And sure you can totally play D&D without thinking about these things and have loads of fun (I have done this many times since most of the groups I play with aren't optimizers - honestly the don't-care-about-power play style is more fun IME than playing with optimizers), but then why are you complaining about the power level of a class or a build? You're playing to RP and tell a story rather than have optimal performance in combat so what does it matter how well your character performs in combat? Choose flavourful feats, and suboptimal race-class combos just have fun without worrying about it. If you feel like your character isn't doing what you wanted them to do just talk to the DM about getting some magic items to help them out to do what you want to do with them. It's shockingly easy to Homebrew absolutely anything so a monk can use it... want +3 AC? Sure thing, this monk order invites you to join them and if you earn their respect they give you a set of monk robes that give you +3 AC.
And sure you can totally play D&D without thinking about these things and have loads of fun (I have done this many times since most of the groups I play with aren't optimizers - honestly the don't-care-about-power play style is more fun IME than playing with optimizers), but then why are you complaining about the power level of a class or a build? You're playing to RP and tell a story rather than have optimal performance in combat so what does it matter how well your character performs in combat? Choose flavourful feats, and suboptimal race-class combos just have fun without worrying about it. If you feel like your character isn't doing what you wanted them to do just talk to the DM about getting some magic items to help them out to do what you want to do with them. It's shockingly easy to Homebrew absolutely anything so a monk can use it... want +3 AC? Sure thing, this monk order invites you to join them and if you earn their respect they give you a set of monk robes that give you +3 AC.
Thing is, you're not playing alone, DnD is a team game. And more than once, I ran into an issue of dissatisfaction when there's a paladin that steamrolls almost everything that stands in the party's path while being pretty much unbreakable with paladin's saving throws aura and all that healing, a GWM fighter/barbarian that one-shots lesser enemies routinely, and monk that punches for like 1d6+4 damage. Needless to say, one of the three felt underperforming. I was playing a mastermind rogue, being the fourth of the group, but I at least contributed in social situations, scouting and other rogue business, so even though the damage and survivability didn't measure up to the two main powerhouses, I got other aspects covered and that was enough. The guy who played a monk... well, he happened to land a killing blow on Strahd, so at least that saved the situation somewhat.
Handing out crutches to PCs is just an act of pity and everyone will know that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Part of the problem as I see it is that D&D combat is a bit too... abstracted to satisfactorily model the kind of combat people are talking about. In my experience with both unarmed and armed combat blocking, parrying, and dodging are a huge part of the tactical toolkit, and D&D's simplification of all that down to a fixed AC and the all-or-nothing Dodge action simply doesn't *work* for Kung Fu movies. What's happening in those movies is a lot of localized maneuvering, that fits a lot within the 5'/10' ranges.
The only way I can think of making this work is change the Dodge action to get it more granular somehow for Warrior-types.
Just spitballing here: Warriors, being primarily trained for combat and rather than giving up all actions, can give disadvantage to a single incoming attack by using one attack of their own to parry/dodge/whatever. So, say for a Monk that has... four attacks this round for whatever reason, they can strike twice, and give disadvantage on two incoming attacks? I'm not sure about this, it's early in the morning and I'm still a bit fuzzy on how well that would work.
Who said I was only talking about monk weapons?
You didn't double-check the class' proficiencies, did you?
Nobody else here is talking about constantly running in and out of melee; burning Ki points every turn and consuming the monk's bonus action. That's all you. You invented this argument out of whole cloth, and I can't come up with a rational reason why.
I agree that we often fall into the mistake of trying to think of combat as a series of specific moves when DnD is intentionally very abstract. You see that a lot in proposed changes to martial abilities, weapons, and armor. It's tough to sometimes balance what people want with the abstraction of the game.
I also love the idea of Warriors getting to trade individual attacks for defense against specific enemies. That's a neat concept worth considering how it might work. And I like the visual. For Monks specifically, patient defense does already capture this idea pretty well. But a back up version when you're out of ki might be nice too.
I don't see your point. If you want to use bows, there's Kensei subclass that makes longbow scale with Martial Arts feature and lets you use bonus action to add 1d4 damage to every shot, not to mention other kensei features. It seems that you're not very familiar with monk subclasses)
You're not reading the thread. Quote below. Also, you should convey your point clearly.
All monks can use shortbows if they want to be at range, sure they aren't monk weapons but the only class feature that depends on wielding a monk weapon is Martial Arts which is one unarmed strike per round that the monk probably wouldn't use anyway. So every monk is totally capable at being at range if they want to save ki. However, IME monk typically want to use ki because it doesn't run out that fast, and they get it all back on a SR. Sure if the DM spams easy combats at the party and they party never SRs then monk doesn't get to use their cool features, but neither do warlocks or fighters, so monk isn't significantly worse off than either of them (just be a kensai, use a longbow + SS and you'll handily out damage the warlock and matchvthe fighter).
I have been reading the thread, K. It's you who can't keep up. Monks are proficient with a shortbow. Everyone here knows this. You're the one who chose to disregard that.
The reality is not every monk is going to play using Way of the Kensei. For those that don't, they have a dedicated ranged option. Is it ideal? No. Neither is a barbarian who's best ranged option─at the moment─is to throw a javelin at their enemies. If you want to talk tactics, then you'd best know all of their tools. Such a monk could absolutely make an excellent skirmisher; because ranged attacks are how skirmishers tend to engage. But the monk prefers melee combat. It can't use Martial Arts and Stunning Strike otherwise. Again, everyone knows this.
Which makes your insistence that the monk, as a skirmisher, doesn't make sense...doesn't make sense. Because nobody here is arguing it does. Skirmishing isn't punching someone and running away. The monk is a flexible switch-hitter that doesn't excel in any one role, but it can switch to one of several roles; depending on the situation. It can go all-out on attacking, with Flurry of Blows. It can hold a position with Patient Defense. And it can use Step of the Wind (and its Unarmored Movement Improvement) to safely get places other party members can't.
Quite frankly, I think you lost the plot when you went all anime with your very first post on page 1 of this thread. I think your idea of the monk is just so alien to what it is and has been that you don't understand what you're asking for.
It is 100% possible to play a melee skirmisher, skirmisher's are not required to be ranged. I'm playing one right now in as a melee rogue in a long running campaign. Because this is a game with a party. The paladin or barbarian stands toe-to-toe with the enemy, the skirmisher darts in and out of melee then the enemy either has to take an AoO from the paladin or barb (that could hurt a lot) or it has to attack the pally/barb rather than the skirmisher. I find it so hard to believe that so many people just stand still in melee, I mean half the fun of playing a melee character is the importance of positioning and all the things you can do with that...
I never said a melee skirmisher wasn't possible, only that it isn't how skirmishing is normally done. The swashbuckler archetype is a sort of skirmisher. Every enemy it attacks, regardless of whether these attacks hit, can't make an Opportunity Attack against them when they withdraw that same turn. And the scout archetype, which I think is designed primarily for ranged combat, literally has the Skirmisher feature. But not everyone can do these things, and you do a good job of highlighting how a party can work together to facilitate that kind of play.
Unfortunately, your example isn't a universal experience. Not every party is going to have someone with the Sentinel feat. Not at 1st level, or 4th, or even 8th. And not every party is going to think as tactically-minded as you do. Even playing on a grid is an optional rule. We have to be careful in conflating our own table experiences with how others play or may have played.
This is fine for a warrior monk style character but
Monks are supposed to be much more than physical training, they are academics.
Furthermore the physical training of martial artists in the real world does not always translate into exceptional fighting skills.
A Chinese MMA brawler who fought in the ring went to the Shaolin and Wu Shu Temples around China and challenged many of the so called masters to a MMA style fight allowing them to use their long taught secrets.
He ended up embarrassing all of them. The problem is while the masters did spar and train and could do many things the MMA fighter could never do they had very little actual real one on one combat experiences with someone dedicated to taking them down. Most of the techniques were never used outside of opponents not in the Kung Fu schools. The MMA fighter, involved in dozens of actual fights in the ring and no telling how many sparring contests had more actual skill keeping hjmself alive and unhurt and destroying the enemy. So he excelled over them in an actual contest because he was better trained at combat.
This is the difference between a soldier and a warrior, the bread and butter the fighter class is supposed to represent and the gymnast or shaolin monk that trains the body.
(Note: He was so successful the gub'ment got angry and labeled him a thought criminal for it and destroyed his social credit score but that is another matter)
For this reason I think Monk's in game should be d8. There fighting abilities should be mystical. They can run up walls, hide in plain site, commune with the akashic record and get mystical insight and divinations. The theoretically should have their own spell list with nothing but divination spells perhaps. They should also be literate, have access to any knowledge skill etc. along with the iron body and other techniques.
But in battle the fighter class should be superior in one on one combat. This used to be true when there were many more combat feats and differentiation in to hit charts.
Now that WOTC gets rid of that (and that is fine it is just mechanics, you make them do what you want) they should work in more options and powers for fighters that beef them up and make them useful.
Just my two cents.
Sentinel isn't necessary for this play style, skimishers aren't squishy wizards that will die from 1 hit. It is typically worth it to take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50% via an AoO. And when you are starting to get low HP wise you can Step of the Wind out to safety and swap to a shortbow for ranged attacks or pour the rest of your ki into Stunning Strike as if you're about to die then chances are the whole party will need a SR after the fight anyway (unless your DMs a dick and having the enemies focus-fire on the dude in robes who isn't doing the bulk of the damage to them).
When did "run away so an enemy has to take an AoO to hit me" or "run away so the enemy can't hit me" become a grand strategy? Perhaps this whole argument is just a symptom of people thinking monk is "the easiest class" and that martials "just run towards enemies and attack". Neither of these things are true, but both of which are popular talking points among the "optimizer" channels. To be an effective monk, you need as much strategy and tactics as a rogue.
Excellent skirmishers with only two attacks for d6+Dex damage and no features that they could apply to these attacks? Cool, cool. Call me back when you find people actually playing like this) If you want to talk tactics, consider using the class features in combat. And be competitive at that.
But again, you're not making your point clear. Argument for the sake of argument. You put an unwarranted amount of effort avoiding making a point on how monks are supposed to be played, why it's not working, and how it can be fixed. Which is a point of this thread. What are you even trying to say?
BTW, "you went all anime with your very first post on page 1 of this thread" (where exactly did I anyway, and if I did, why is that a bad thing?) coming from a person who said "It's Dungeons & Dragons, dude. Nobody cares about realism" one page earlier is pretty funny)
This is turning out longer than I initially intended, so I'm apologizing in advance.
Unless I've missed a class feature in the last six years, Sentinel is necessary to make an Opportunity Attack against a target that attacks someone else. And I never said running away was a grand strategy. It's just dependent on factors. You need to be able to withdraw and still hit them. Do you want to keep making melee attacks, which you can get more of, or are you content with ranged attacks? Can they still reach you? If so, running may not matter. The types of enemies, and the nature of any given combat, should be expected to vary. Sometimes, they can turn on a dime with reinforcements or environmental changes.
Let's revisit to your example from before. If running away provokes an OA from the enemy, and taking that OA provokes another OA from a party member, then why run? The enemy can't make more than one attack against the monk, anyway. And if they attack the monk, they'll just take more damage from the barbarian/paladin and go down more quickly. They're better off just hitting the barbarian/fighter, unless they think they can drop the monk in that one turn, so the monk is probably safe. Or they'll run, because they have two enemies in their face. Not every fight should be to the death, and it's reasonable to assume self-preservation.
Heck, the monk could have Sentinel and use Patient Defense to keep their defenses up. The enemy might not want to hit the monk, because Disadvantage, but if they don't they'll get smacked and possibly [condition]stunned[condition]. My point, here, is anecdotes and hypotheticals are unhelpful. We can keep slinging them back and forth until the heat death of the universe, and we won't actually get anywhere. The only thing we can agree on is that monks do require some strategy and tactics. I called them a scalpel just a page or two ago, and I stand by that statement.
That said, I don't fully know where your head is at. You're asking people to, "take a round of attacks to increase the Barbarian or Paladin's DPR by 50%," because of an Opportunity Attack. This isn't chess where you intentionally sacrifice a piece for a better position. You're dealing with maybe a half-dozen people, all of whom have their own desires and agendas. People don't like seeing their characters get hit and go down. And I dislike conversations about DPR and "optimization" on principle because D&D isn't competitive. At least, it shouldn't be. I only know how to have those conversations because I want to understand people. Because I can't meaningfully converse with them if I don't.
(Unfortunately, I don't think everyone wants to be understood. I think they want confusion because they think it makes them look more intelligent by comparison. And people will pretend, to fake it until they make it, so they also look intelligent. I've seen/heard, "You just don't get it," enough to last me several lifetimes.)
I think your experience and expectations are different enough that it's causing some friction. I've said in other threads that Sentinel is a trick you can pull off once, maybe twice, in a fight. You can't reliably count on mooks triggering it every turn. Monks can skirmish, as can a lot of other classes. They can also frontline, as can a lot of other classes. That's the real strength of a monk. It can do a lot and help out in a pinch, but it doesn't quite do everything as well as other classes can. The monk can't specialize like they can, and D&D rewards specialization. I get how that can be frustrating and makes the monk look weak, by comparison. I don't think people yelling about how playing it a certain way is wrong or doesn't make sense is remotely helpful. That tells me their biases are getting in the way of having an open mind. And that's something I actively try to avoid.
Dear Lord! Somebody is making a decision that could potentially reduce their hitpoints in exchange for a chance to do more damage?! They're using strategy and managing their resources to defeat their enemies with minimal loss! What is this, CHESS?! Filthy optimizers. When will they learn.
Also, literally nobody brought up Sentinel. Being out of reach from somebody who is next to an ally means, most likely, that if they choose to move towards you they will leave your ally's reach. This provokes an Opportunity Attack, Sentinel or no Sentinel.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It looks like there are several playstyles that should be supported in the next version of monk. Even if a style does not appeal to you, other players would like to try it.
Under current 5E rules, the fontliner playstyle is the most difficult. Monks do not have the AC comparable to heavy armor + shield or the HP compared to any other frontliner. Only BA Dodge currently makes this doable by burning a finite resource. Changing Deflect Missiles to Deflect Attack makes a monk frontliner feasible while helping other strategies.
The hit & run style is tricky in 5E. It typically involves spending Ki one way or another. A resource-less disengage or equivalent helps this strategy and the ranged strategy.
The ranged strategy is helped by initializing the martial art dice to D6, which helps darts. The new rules on equipping weapons per attack also makes throwing feasible. In general, the Monk's mobility is what defines this strategy. It would be nice if the Stunning Strike (or equivalent) worked at range similar to Battlemaster.
The grappling strategy will work as long as WIS or DEX can be used for the grapple escape DC.
The stunbot equivalent strategy should be able to target at least one other save besides CON, hopefully with a variety of statuses to choose from.
Nice list. I would like to add another one. Not sure what to call it, maybe the Scalpel? A precision striker. The Monk player in my games uses his mobility to either slip past enemies and capture/engage the boss, or to pick up fallen allies and carry them to safety. He's always moving to where he can provide the best help to the party as a whole each turn. When he tanks, he's doing it with patient defense and stunning strikes just long enough for others to regroup. I guess it's similar to Hit and Run. But more like Run and Hit, haha. He's getting himself into danger to get others out or give them the chance to catch up.
I agree that changes to the game are already helping the Monk. And there are some easy to anticipate rules they could do that would help even more. Dash and Disengage for free, use other stats for grappling, deflecting damage, etc.
But I also think the Monk is a pretty decent class already. It just takes a lot more planning each turn than some others. I like that about it and hope the new changes don't overcompensate too much.
Monk does have this assassin thing going on with their superior mobility. It is true that monks often use it to quickly get into intimate range of a squishy mage of the enemy group and knock them out quickly. However, after the pesky spellcaster is gone, the melee meat remains. And someone has to grind it. Using Step of the Wind takes up ki, unlike rogue's free disengage through Cunning Action, or swashbuckler's Fancy Footwork. Everything a monk can do other than bonk costs ki. And on early levels, which is half of most campaigns, that's a lot of time starved, playing basically as a fighter but with more movement speed.
There are certain things that must carry over from 5e to keep the feel of the class. Divine smite, Ki points, and sorcery points are 5e creations for these classes and are sure to carry over for 1dnd. It’s now a part of the class identity for the foreseeable future. Technically ki has been around longer for the monk, but the ki point per level is a 5e thing. I don’t see them moving too far from it.
It’s okay if everything you do cost ki as long as everything that cost ki is meaningful. Step of the wind should just be that you don’t provoke opportunity attacks and you get the dash and jump distance bonus all for 1 ki. Also with the new 1dnd jump rules I’m guessing you dash, or jump action as a bonus action. The extra unarmed attack should be a part of the action. Flurry of blows could also be apart of the attack action. Freeing up your bonus action for any of your other monk abilities.
I feel that monks shouldn’t get armor training, but that’s more of a legacy thing. Unarmored Defense definitely needs to scale better or let one monk option with no ki point use be to add pb to AC as a bonus action. That way every turn it’s an option to fight defensively. Hopefully they do a better job of having magic items for monks earlier in 1 dnd. Also they don’t hide the one good item early on in an adventure. I’m talking about that fang that makes your unarmed strikes a +1. Now we have tattoos and a couple monk specific items. The hope Is those come online earlier in 1dnd life cycle. Maybe in PHB or DMG.
Im all in on the d10 or d12 hit dice. Also back to ki point spending feeling meaningful when you spend a ki point on patient defense to take the dodge action as a bonus action you should probably get resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage as well. That way of the disadvantage on the roll does nothing to help you still got some benefit it from it.
Monk should have a fighting style option and more weapon options. Kensai should have heavy options.
Also in the event that short rest aren’t happening monks and any class or subclass that has short rest recharge abilities should have a way to regain some of those points/abilities without the short rest. In case the DM or party refuse to let you short rest. In 5e being a monk in a party with a Paladin, Cleric and Wizard it’s hard to convince the group to take a short rest.
Short Rests haven't been spelled out in the playtest material, but there are several references to them. There are feats, class features, and spells that include them. Just not many. We're to assume they aren't changing how the short rest works from 5e at the moment. Something I'm sure is a disappointment to many.
I really don't know how you've gotten here. I have NOT been talking about Sentinel at all, and I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding this very simple strategy:
Situation: There is a tanky character in your party, maybe a barbarian, maybe a fighter, maybe a paladin. They are attacking a big brute-y enemy. You are a monk with some ki available, and are close to your paladin friend and thus close to the big bad brute. You have lots of movement speed because you are a monk so you can move into and out of melee of the big bad brute if you want to. So what should you do?
(a) you can move into melee with the big bad brute hit them 3-4 times and stay in melee with the big bad brute. This means the big bad brute could attack you or the paladin without having to move. There is almost no chance either of you get an AoO, and depending on the DM's thought process the BBB might decide to use all its attacks on you the monk b/c you look like an easy target or not.
(b) you can move into melee with the BBB hit them several times (depending on monk subclass) and then move 15 ft away from the BBB, now the BBB can attack the paladin without having the move, the paladin has more AC and HP that you so this means the BBB probably won't hurt them as badly as you would have been hurt if the BBB attacked you, or the BBB can move 10 ft and attack you this movement will provoke an AoO from the paladin (bringing their 2 attacks per round up to 3) but you'll end up more hurt than the paladin would have if the BBB attacked the paladin (this is a trade: enemy deals more damage but your party also deals more damage).
(c) you can move into melee with the big bad brute hit them twice then use Patient Defense and continue standing next to the BBB. If the DM decides the BBB goes after you b/c you look like an easy target, you now are probably going to get hit less than if the BBB had attacked the paladin because BBB has disadvantage to hit you. But you'll still get hit some. (this is again a trade: you do less damage b/c you use Patient defense rather than attacking but the enemy also deals less damage), or the BBB could choose to attack the paladin b/c you're now harder to hit than them, this is still better than the BBB attacking you without Patient Defense but less so that if you had been attacked.
This isn't some grand chess strategy requiring you to think 7 moves ahead. It's simply thinking about what the enemies could do on their next turn based on the situation at the end of your turn. And sure you can totally play D&D without thinking about these things and have loads of fun (I have done this many times since most of the groups I play with aren't optimizers - honestly the don't-care-about-power play style is more fun IME than playing with optimizers), but then why are you complaining about the power level of a class or a build? You're playing to RP and tell a story rather than have optimal performance in combat so what does it matter how well your character performs in combat? Choose flavourful feats, and suboptimal race-class combos just have fun without worrying about it. If you feel like your character isn't doing what you wanted them to do just talk to the DM about getting some magic items to help them out to do what you want to do with them. It's shockingly easy to Homebrew absolutely anything so a monk can use it... want +3 AC? Sure thing, this monk order invites you to join them and if you earn their respect they give you a set of monk robes that give you +3 AC.
Thing is, you're not playing alone, DnD is a team game. And more than once, I ran into an issue of dissatisfaction when there's a paladin that steamrolls almost everything that stands in the party's path while being pretty much unbreakable with paladin's saving throws aura and all that healing, a GWM fighter/barbarian that one-shots lesser enemies routinely, and monk that punches for like 1d6+4 damage. Needless to say, one of the three felt underperforming. I was playing a mastermind rogue, being the fourth of the group, but I at least contributed in social situations, scouting and other rogue business, so even though the damage and survivability didn't measure up to the two main powerhouses, I got other aspects covered and that was enough. The guy who played a monk... well, he happened to land a killing blow on Strahd, so at least that saved the situation somewhat.
Handing out crutches to PCs is just an act of pity and everyone will know that.