The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
warlock/rogue isnt a base rogue, There are numerable ways warlock levels can change things. Also, campaign anecdote doesnt tell us much, Different DMs have different challenge levels or design imperatives, and a good dm adjusts to the group. Also teams can carry people. two great players/classes can beat most CR relative encounters duo, so its possible to have 2-3 players who don't need to be that good.
If a DM has enemies focus-fire on the Monk because of (real or perceived) lower AC/HP, they're not only being a horrible DM to the Monk, they're also being a horrible DM to the high-AC Fighter because they're refusing to let the player take advantage of the strengths of their character, to the point of punishing other players for their character choices.
If a DM has the enemies attack the target that is clearly well armored and isn't doing all that much damage instead of the character that is clearly unarmored and doing high damage they're making the monsters willfully stupid. If you build a high AC fighter and don't give them features that make them sticky (sentinel, cavalier) you're asking to not be attacked and have no justification for objecting when you don't get attacked.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
If you've only been knocked unconscious 3-4 times in the entire campaign the DM is not using any hard fights. It barely even matters what your class is.
Don't play as if the game requires, or even expects, "tanking" to be a thing.
I'm not. My point is that, given tanking isn't a thing, 'melee glass cannon' is a bad design choice.
If a DM has enemies focus-fire on the Monk because of (real or perceived) lower AC/HP, they're not only being a horrible DM to the Monk, they're also being a horrible DM to the high-AC Fighter because they're refusing to let the player take advantage of the strengths of their character, to the point of punishing other players for their character choices.
If an enemy has a choice between a completely unarmored and relatively skinny martial artist who (according to you) is doing off-the-charts damage and a big dude in full plate who (according to you) is doing mediocre damage...
no, wait, I change my mind, you were right all along. Giving enemies half a brain is being a horrible DM to everyone, no matter the situation.
How come all of a sudden the argument shifted from "Monks are more survivable than you think" to "Monks aren't survivable, but this core flaw isn't actually a problem because any DM who doesn't defy logic to protect the Monk is punishing the player for their class being bad"?
also, is it a similarly horrible dm who pulls their punches when someone in pajamas rushes into the thick of battle beside the high-AC fighter and begins attempting to soak an equal number of attacks as the fighter? luck might win the day once, but is the risk worth the return in damage on average and repeatably?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
All they keep talking about is damage and combat and if that's what they want to focus on, then they are really talking about a fighter who does unarmed combat.
In practice, all D&D classes do combat, it's mostly a question of their style of combat. In terms of combat role, monks are single-target melee dps, and has a fairly standard setup for that -- high damage, low defense. If we look at level 1 dpr, the monk is pretty clearly in the lead -- as far as I know the top 5 are
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Which takes me back to the response I gave a short while ago: We know the archetypes for Rogues is not "dpr", we know the archetype for fighters is basically Dpr, we know the archetype for barbarians is essentially big guy smash, and the archetype for Rangers is some kind of weird Aragorn meets the green man but light.
And while we can look at all those dprs, what we see is, yet again, that the monk is really just a fighter subclass because once you step out from beyond the dpr into utility and other capabilities, they lose their basis, their archetype, their job.
I mean, again, if all you want to do is or mesure is dpr, well, then all of those are fighter variants.
So it isn't about *just* combat (except for fighter, lol), it is about more than that. it is the more about it part that is missing and I am saying that is why the class is sorta ignored by the developers. It's just blah in terms of a foundation and a purpose. Not a Role in the sense of 4e, but I mean in the bigger picture -- what makes a Monk a monk that isn't their dpr?
Toss in Paladins and Warlocks and Sorcerers and Wizards into that mix, and you will still be able to say the exact same thing -- but you will also start to recall that what folks will say is "well, they don't do combat" and I will point out as you jut did that they all do combat. They do it differently. Yet we won't confuse any of them for a fighter because they all have fairly strong archetypes that the designers understand (and almost certainly have an interest in).
I mean, from a mechanical standpoint, in my mind, a Monk and a Bard should sit at roughly the same level , with monk edging slightly ahead. Next would be paladin and ranger, with the slightly ahead variable on what they are facing. Then barbarian and Fighter, and the variable 'edge" goes to the circumstances of their fighting.
zbut that also means that the special abilities of the monk should at least be a match for the bard.
And how do I get that? That archetype -- the Kwai Chang bit, specifically. The wandering peacemaker who fights only as a last resort and prefers to create harmony and help others. A far cry from the archetype I ended up using: a mortal kombat participant, drawing on the video game and bruce lee's Enter the Dragon, using what hey encounter in the world as a way to improve their unarmed combat abilities in order to take out literal nightmares in ritualized one on one combat.
That's two different takes. They could be subclasses, but one doesn't rely on crazy special abilities to rip spines out or teleport across a room. THe other relies on dodge and evade as action, and would likely use them as reactions, with simple effective grappling and low damage.
Again, the archetype determines the capabilities, and based on the current (non UA) subclasses, they are going for the horribly vague, poorly structured "warring states" with "38 steps" kind of monk, where there are styles of martial arts but again the focus in on not getting hit while hitting -- but they screwed up the not getting hit part, lol.
I think you said you barely play 5e without homebrew, and only look to one dnd for curiosity, or interesting bits,
so you have some ideas that aren't represented in the actual current or UA game.
1) fighter isn't the highest DPR class in 5e
2) utility and dpr have no real relation, some classes have high dpr and high utility, some classes have low dpr and low utility.
3) sub class has nothing to do with utility or dpr, subclasses are small riffs on a class design. What if I was a wizard who melees, or Druid who was focused on the elements and the land. A ranger with a trusty animal companion. Sub class has to be almost exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features different. Subclasses don't have subclasses.
in your DND amalgamation with various homebrew, you might consider fighter and monk close enough to brew something, But in 5e, fighter subclass is not what the people who play monk want.
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
warlock/rogue isnt a base rogue, There are numerable ways warlock levels can change things. Also, campaign anecdote doesnt tell us much, Different DMs have different challenge levels or design imperatives, and a good dm adjusts to the group. Also teams can carry people. two great players/classes can beat most CR relative encounters duo, so its possible to have 2-3 players who don't need to be that good.
which is fine as long as everyone has fun.
LOL, half the party was envious of this character because she did pretty amazing DPR combining Green Flame Blade with Sneak Attack and her Scimitar of Speed (occasionally using Eldritch Smite for nova damage). And despite her often standing in melee near to the paladin that had magical full plate so they could get flanking for each other. And yet, despite what all is being said in this thread being a melee-glass cannon worked just fine. Sure she had to be healed more often than any other character, but that's why you have a cleric in the party.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
It appears your DM's standard for appropriate fight difficulty is... different from mine.
All they keep talking about is damage and combat and if that's what they want to focus on, then they are really talking about a fighter who does unarmed combat.
In practice, all D&D classes do combat, it's mostly a question of their style of combat. In terms of combat role, monks are single-target melee dps, and has a fairly standard setup for that -- high damage, low defense. If we look at level 1 dpr, the monk is pretty clearly in the lead -- as far as I know the top 5 are
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Which takes me back to the response I gave a short while ago: We know the archetypes for Rogues is not "dpr", we know the archetype for fighters is basically Dpr, we know the archetype for barbarians is essentially big guy smash, and the archetype for Rangers is some kind of weird Aragorn meets the green man but light.
And while we can look at all those dprs, what we see is, yet again, that the monk is really just a fighter subclass because once you step out from beyond the dpr into utility and other capabilities, they lose their basis, their archetype, their job.
I mean, again, if all you want to do is or mesure is dpr, well, then all of those are fighter variants.
So it isn't about *just* combat (except for fighter, lol), it is about more than that. it is the more about it part that is missing and I am saying that is why the class is sorta ignored by the developers. It's just blah in terms of a foundation and a purpose. Not a Role in the sense of 4e, but I mean in the bigger picture -- what makes a Monk a monk that isn't their dpr?
Toss in Paladins and Warlocks and Sorcerers and Wizards into that mix, and you will still be able to say the exact same thing -- but you will also start to recall that what folks will say is "well, they don't do combat" and I will point out as you jut did that they all do combat. They do it differently. Yet we won't confuse any of them for a fighter because they all have fairly strong archetypes that the designers understand (and almost certainly have an interest in).
I mean, from a mechanical standpoint, in my mind, a Monk and a Bard should sit at roughly the same level , with monk edging slightly ahead. Next would be paladin and ranger, with the slightly ahead variable on what they are facing. Then barbarian and Fighter, and the variable 'edge" goes to the circumstances of their fighting.
zbut that also means that the special abilities of the monk should at least be a match for the bard.
And how do I get that? That archetype -- the Kwai Chang bit, specifically. The wandering peacemaker who fights only as a last resort and prefers to create harmony and help others. A far cry from the archetype I ended up using: a mortal kombat participant, drawing on the video game and bruce lee's Enter the Dragon, using what hey encounter in the world as a way to improve their unarmed combat abilities in order to take out literal nightmares in ritualized one on one combat.
That's two different takes. They could be subclasses, but one doesn't rely on crazy special abilities to rip spines out or teleport across a room. THe other relies on dodge and evade as action, and would likely use them as reactions, with simple effective grappling and low damage.
Again, the archetype determines the capabilities, and based on the current (non UA) subclasses, they are going for the horribly vague, poorly structured "warring states" with "38 steps" kind of monk, where there are styles of martial arts but again the focus in on not getting hit while hitting -- but they screwed up the not getting hit part, lol.
I think you said you barely play 5e without homebrew, and only look to one dnd for curiosity, or interesting bits,
so you have some ideas that aren't represented in the actual current or UA game.
1) fighter isn't the highest DPR class in 5e
2) utility and dpr have no real relation, some classes have high dpr and high utility, some classes have low dpr and low utility.
3) sub class has nothing to do with utility or dpr, subclasses are small riffs on a class design. What if I was a wizard who melees, or Druid who was focused on the elements and the land. A ranger with a trusty animal companion. Sub class has to be almost exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features different. Subclasses don't have subclasses.
in your DND amalgamation with various homebrew, you might consider fighter and monk close enough to brew something, But in 5e, fighter subclass is not what the people who play monk want.
40 plus years of the game, I can do with and without homebrew -- my players have varying opinions, though, and they win.
I didn't say they were the highest DPR in the game, I disagree that utility and dpr have no correlation (I mean, like, y'know, science and stuffs), nor did I note that all classes should have the same dpr, sub-classes can impact both utility and dpr, depending on the subclass, the feature, and so forth , I never said subclasses had subclasses, in my set up they are absolutely not akin to each other, and the point of all my points so far is:
nobody agrees on what they want (not the players here, not the designers, not the broader playing public), and the reason for that is that they all have different ideas of what the basic monk archetype is, and what ideas they do have focus on dpr, which is an error to make in my opinion because you cannot judge dpr as a comparative without having an effective archetype, otherwise you are just making a fighter.
I am using a homebrew as a comparator basis, to demonstrate the change in the way that having a strong archetype helps guide the development (and so the guiding the goals of that development) of the class as a whole.
Note that the archetypes I gave in the post you quoted are only *possible* ones -- I am not saying people should use them, I am saying people to need to collectively decide what the archetype they want to see is, and then design and focus the improvements and changes they want to see done officially within that archetype.
Otherwise it is just throwing ultimately meaningless number at each other and complaining without making any attempt to actually solve the problem constructively. I mean, if everyone on this thread were to gather their thoughts and submit them in the next response period for the Monk class, they might listen and adopt some of those changes -- and you might see the Monk get some love from designers who do not appear to really care about it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Don't play as if the game requires, or even expects, "tanking" to be a thing.
I'm not. My point is that, given tanking isn't a thing, 'melee glass cannon' is a bad design choice.
If a DM has enemies focus-fire on the Monk because of (real or perceived) lower AC/HP, they're not only being a horrible DM to the Monk, they're also being a horrible DM to the high-AC Fighter because they're refusing to let the player take advantage of the strengths of their character, to the point of punishing other players for their character choices.
The Dm should do what the fiction dictates, with a slight bias for people having fun, and trying not to actively end the game.
They probably shouldn't target the guy with high AC just because he wanted people to try to hit him.
its fairly costly to try to force/encourage enemies to attack one guy, DM probably shouldn't do it for free. Its not really a tank based game design. (Which is good imo)
Which takes me back to the response I gave a short while ago: We know the archetypes for Rogues is not "dpr", we know the archetype for fighters is basically Dpr, we know the archetype for barbarians is essentially big guy smash, and the archetype for Rangers is some kind of weird Aragorn meets the green man but light.
Within the 'combat' pillar of play, in tier 1 all four of them are single target dpr, just with varying offense to defense ratios (and within those classes, there are varying offense to defense ratios). You start getting some soft CC with subclasses at level 3 but they're still primarily dpr. Monks get hard CC at level 5 with stunning strike, so at level 5+ they're hybrid dpr/cc. In theory they could be balancing weaker combat performance with better performance in the other pillars of play, but in practice that doesn't seem to be a major balancing goal and the monk doesn't have any particular special tools in exploration or social anyway.
I would argue that the problem is no one really knows what the Monk's job is.
"unarmed fighting" isn't a job, it is a description of how a job iis done. "high damage" isn't a job, but how it is done.
So, what is the Monk's Job? What is it they bring to the world as a whole, and how do they fit into it?
Looking at the features, much like the fighter, their job is combat. They don't have the skills for much of anything outside of combat. It seems that putting the same questions to the Fighter will yield similar answers. Or am I wrong?
you are right kreen. thanks for speaking truth .
for some reason people have it in their mind if you make monk good it infringes on the fighter which is the dumbest take. Honestly a monk should do more dpr then a fighter if you are expending a resource. fighter is practically busted that it can attack more and for free it should either be equal or cost a resource as well.
I love this idea that because a d8 16-AC character being viable is apparently incomprehensible, clearly the DM is making encounters too easy or that the rest of the party had to be carrying them through encounters.
Survivability is about far more than hit dice or AC. Survivability is about playing smart, taking advantage of all of a class's abilities (not just pure numbers), and working together as a team to take down foes more efficiently and reduce the harm the party faces. The Fighter might wave around big sharp weapons, but the Monk has more tools for escaping danger and controlling enemies. The Barbarian has the muscle to grab an enemy and weather their attacks, which makes a Monk their best friend when the Monk lands a Stunning Strike and then pushes their target to the ground. The Rogue who loves to sneak-attack from a distance can ready their attack for right when the Monk weaves around a crowd of enemies to put themselves next to the enemy wizard.
Viable yes, properly balanced to the rest of the classes no . it is far to weak and there is no excuse to not work on fixing it .
I would argue that the problem is no one really knows what the Monk's job is.
"unarmed fighting" isn't a job, it is a description of how a job iis done. "high damage" isn't a job, but how it is done.
So, what is the Monk's Job? What is it they bring to the world as a whole, and how do they fit into it?
Looking at the features, much like the fighter, their job is combat. They don't have the skills for much of anything outside of combat. It seems that putting the same questions to the Fighter will yield similar answers. Or am I wrong?
You are correct, which is why I have been making the point of just make Monk a subclass of fighter if we are going to focus on the combat aspect of the class.
ANd the reason is because there is no real archetype for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If your campaign is D&D Ocean's Eleven, sure. But you can build a monk to fill a role there, just like you could build a fighter, cleric, druid, barbarian, etc... Monks can be stealthy (shadow monks can teleport around in dim light or darkness. I think this is where looking at a class name and thinking why would we need a monk? or what is the monks job? doesn't really fit as you can build pretty much any class to fit most roles, especially RP ones.
Well, *now* you can, lol. Hasn't always been that way, and is one of the reason old farts like me get cranky about there not being any real division between the classes anymore, and we don't like that.
There is a way around that problem that I am using (not the only, not the best, just a way) that still retains that whole flexibility thing that allows you to craft a character that is similar in that way, but it still leaves each class distinct and unique and works super well with 5e.
More pointedly, htough, if that is the case, then why don't they just turn the Monk class into a fighter? Why don' thtey just get rid of it entirely and just make unarmed combat a collection of feats that people can choose if they want?
The point of the classes is to be an archetype -- well, "unarmed combat" isn't an archetype it is something that an archetype does. Same basic principle in play.
What's the archetype? If you don't know that, then you don't have a class, you have a subclass for all the others.
Yes, this edition is quite a bit more flexible. I’m an old fart like you and started out in 1E. I played monks then (PHB monk and the Dragon Magazine monk, which was buffed quite a bit from what I remember) and every other class in that edition. Even took a stab at the bard in the appendix too. So I get what you are saying about class divisions. But I like the flexibility
I think archetype is a better approach than what a class’s “job” is. Fighters fit the armored weapon specialist (even more prominent now with how they interact with weapon mastery). The monk is the living weapon. Quick and mobile, able to strike quickly and repeatedly without the need of weapons or armor. Can they write some better fluff to make them fit better within the world? Of course. But I don’t know if that is necessary as players shouldn’t feel restricted by by that fluff.
All they keep talking about is damage and combat and if that's what they want to focus on, then they are really talking about a fighter who does unarmed combat.
In practice, all D&D classes do combat, it's mostly a question of their style of combat. In terms of combat role, monks are single-target melee dps, and has a fairly standard setup for that -- high damage, low defense. If we look at level 1 dpr, the monk is pretty clearly in the lead -- as far as I know the top 5 are
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Which takes me back to the response I gave a short while ago: We know the archetypes for Rogues is not "dpr", we know the archetype for fighters is basically Dpr, we know the archetype for barbarians is essentially big guy smash, and the archetype for Rangers is some kind of weird Aragorn meets the green man but light.
And while we can look at all those dprs, what we see is, yet again, that the monk is really just a fighter subclass because once you step out from beyond the dpr into utility and other capabilities, they lose their basis, their archetype, their job.
I mean, again, if all you want to do is or mesure is dpr, well, then all of those are fighter variants.
So it isn't about *just* combat (except for fighter, lol), it is about more than that. it is the more about it part that is missing and I am saying that is why the class is sorta ignored by the developers. It's just blah in terms of a foundation and a purpose. Not a Role in the sense of 4e, but I mean in the bigger picture -- what makes a Monk a monk that isn't their dpr?
Toss in Paladins and Warlocks and Sorcerers and Wizards into that mix, and you will still be able to say the exact same thing -- but you will also start to recall that what folks will say is "well, they don't do combat" and I will point out as you jut did that they all do combat. They do it differently. Yet we won't confuse any of them for a fighter because they all have fairly strong archetypes that the designers understand (and almost certainly have an interest in).
I mean, from a mechanical standpoint, in my mind, a Monk and a Bard should sit at roughly the same level , with monk edging slightly ahead. Next would be paladin and ranger, with the slightly ahead variable on what they are facing. Then barbarian and Fighter, and the variable 'edge" goes to the circumstances of their fighting.
zbut that also means that the special abilities of the monk should at least be a match for the bard.
And how do I get that? That archetype -- the Kwai Chang bit, specifically. The wandering peacemaker who fights only as a last resort and prefers to create harmony and help others. A far cry from the archetype I ended up using: a mortal kombat participant, drawing on the video game and bruce lee's Enter the Dragon, using what hey encounter in the world as a way to improve their unarmed combat abilities in order to take out literal nightmares in ritualized one on one combat.
That's two different takes. They could be subclasses, but one doesn't rely on crazy special abilities to rip spines out or teleport across a room. THe other relies on dodge and evade as action, and would likely use them as reactions, with simple effective grappling and low damage.
Again, the archetype determines the capabilities, and based on the current (non UA) subclasses, they are going for the horribly vague, poorly structured "warring states" with "38 steps" kind of monk, where there are styles of martial arts but again the focus in on not getting hit while hitting -- but they screwed up the not getting hit part, lol.
I think you said you barely play 5e without homebrew, and only look to one dnd for curiosity, or interesting bits,
so you have some ideas that aren't represented in the actual current or UA game.
1) fighter isn't the highest DPR class in 5e
2) utility and dpr have no real relation, some classes have high dpr and high utility, some classes have low dpr and low utility.
3) sub class has nothing to do with utility or dpr, subclasses are small riffs on a class design. What if I was a wizard who melees, or Druid who was focused on the elements and the land. A ranger with a trusty animal companion. Sub class has to be almost exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features different. Subclasses don't have subclasses.
in your DND amalgamation with various homebrew, you might consider fighter and monk close enough to brew something, But in 5e, fighter subclass is not what the people who play monk want.
40 plus years of the game, I can do with and without homebrew -- my players have varying opinions, though, and they win.
I didn't say they were the highest DPR in the game, I disagree that utility and dpr have no correlation (I mean, like, y'know, science and stuffs), nor did I note that all classes should have the same dpr, sub-classes can impact both utility and dpr, depending on the subclass, the feature, and so forth , I never said subclasses had subclasses, in my set up they are absolutely not akin to each other, and the point of all my points so far is:
nobody agrees on what they want (not the players here, not the designers, not the broader playing public), and the reason for that is that they all have different ideas of what the basic monk archetype is, and what ideas they do have focus on dpr, which is an error to make in my opinion because you cannot judge dpr as a comparative without having an effective archetype, otherwise you are just making a fighter.
I am using a homebrew as a comparator basis, to demonstrate the change in the way that having a strong archetype helps guide the development (and so the guiding the goals of that development) of the class as a whole.
Note that the archetypes I gave in the post you quoted are only *possible* ones -- I am not saying people should use them, I am saying people to need to collectively decide what the archetype they want to see is, and then design and focus the improvements and changes they want to see done officially within that archetype.
Otherwise it is just throwing ultimately meaningless number at each other and complaining without making any attempt to actually solve the problem constructively. I mean, if everyone on this thread were to gather their thoughts and submit them in the next response period for the Monk class, they might listen and adopt some of those changes -- and you might see the Monk get some love from designers who do not appear to really care about it.
EDIT: cleaned up my overly speedy typing.
you suggest monk as a subclass of fighter, I'm telling you in the 5e design paradigm, they cannot be a subclass of fighter in a way that would satisfy the 7/8% of players who play monk.
Also, people have differing concepts of what all the classes are, but that doesnt make them bad.
I'm sure people have a lot of different ideas of what the wizard is supposed to be, that doesnt mean they are poorly designed class, or weak.
If your campaign is D&D Ocean's Eleven, sure. But you can build a monk to fill a role there, just like you could build a fighter, cleric, druid, barbarian, etc... Monks can be stealthy (shadow monks can teleport around in dim light or darkness. I think this is where looking at a class name and thinking why would we need a monk? or what is the monks job? doesn't really fit as you can build pretty much any class to fit most roles, especially RP ones.
Well, *now* you can, lol. Hasn't always been that way, and is one of the reason old farts like me get cranky about there not being any real division between the classes anymore, and we don't like that.
There is a way around that problem that I am using (not the only, not the best, just a way) that still retains that whole flexibility thing that allows you to craft a character that is similar in that way, but it still leaves each class distinct and unique and works super well with 5e.
More pointedly, htough, if that is the case, then why don't they just turn the Monk class into a fighter? Why don' thtey just get rid of it entirely and just make unarmed combat a collection of feats that people can choose if they want?
The point of the classes is to be an archetype -- well, "unarmed combat" isn't an archetype it is something that an archetype does. Same basic principle in play.
What's the archetype? If you don't know that, then you don't have a class, you have a subclass for all the others.
Yes, this edition is quite a bit more flexible. I’m an old fart like you and started out in 1E. I played monks then (PHB monk and the Dragon Magazine monk, which was buffed quite a bit from what I remember) and every other class in that edition. Even took a stab at the bard in the appendix too. So I get what you are saying about class divisions. But I like the flexibility
I think archetype is a better approach than what a class’s “job” is. Fighters fit the armored weapon specialist (even more prominent now with how they interact with weapon mastery). The monk is the living weapon. Quick and mobile, able to strike quickly and repeatedly without the need of weapons or armor. Can they write some better fluff to make them fit better within the world? Of course. But I don’t know if that is necessary as players shouldn’t feel restricted by by that fluff.
Ok ok, we've got momentum ;)
There's almost enough to build an archetype on there -- and I don't so much mean fluff. We can get a lot of fluff but most players find out very early that Druids are the defenders of nature, and their stuff builds on that. Warlocks, Sorcerers, even Wizards (best at magic) and fighters and barbarians all have that little extra color, extra line that gives them their place in the world.
And that matters. I mean, yeah, there are 10,000 Jedi classes out there in the wilds as home brew versions. Jedi are magical warriors of a sort -- like six gazillion other subclasses, lol. But this is also because they have a strong archetype on which they are based. Even the Blood Hunter has it.
Why are they the Living Weapons of the world? One quick answer, not linked to how they do something. Just, what is their place. Is it the drive to prove themselves the best warrior, the most potent foe? To show that weapons are not needed to be victorious? TO demonstrate that the way of peace and self discipline is everything?
Hell, it could be all of them if you wanted to do subclasses.
That is the next question, though -- and from those two parts we can now start to build out a model of what they should be able to do -- unless others disagree with the premise that they are to be living weapons?
Edit: Skip if you don't want to hear me blather on about my stuff.
As an old fart, I do agree on the flexibility -- but it erases that distinction. That's why for the setting I am working on I went ahead and made sure to allow both distinctiveness and flexibility. And it was easy, because basically all I did was take all the special abilities of all the classes and turn them into things I call Aspect, but that the main line would call Feats. All of them. Every last one.
My classes are all distinct and has firm rules in how to create them -- but no subclasses. No, they get to basically choose something from that big ole honkin list of Aspects at different levels, one thing every level with some levels getting two things. And these go with the distinctive abilities that only that class has -- no one else can get them, and they can't be put into the list of aspects.
The playtesters absolutely adore it because they get to stop hearing me whine and they still get their flexibility.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
warlock/rogue isnt a base rogue, There are numerable ways warlock levels can change things. Also, campaign anecdote doesnt tell us much, Different DMs have different challenge levels or design imperatives, and a good dm adjusts to the group. Also teams can carry people. two great players/classes can beat most CR relative encounters duo, so its possible to have 2-3 players who don't need to be that good.
which is fine as long as everyone has fun.
LOL, half the party was envious of this character because she did pretty amazing DPR combining Green Flame Blade with Sneak Attack and her Scimitar of Speed (occasionally using Eldritch Smite for nova damage). And despite her often standing in melee near to the paladin that had magical full plate so they could get flanking for each other. And yet, despite what all is being said in this thread being a melee-glass cannon worked just fine. Sure she had to be healed more often than any other character, but that's why you have a cleric in the party.
sounds like a very specific table that probably doesnt represent most players play. And certainly not representive of an average rogue.
lvl 5 warlock, flanking rules, very rare items, pocket healers.
fine for your table, but not too relevant to class design.
the game and classes are not designed to assume you have a cleric.
If your campaign is D&D Ocean's Eleven, sure. But you can build a monk to fill a role there, just like you could build a fighter, cleric, druid, barbarian, etc... Monks can be stealthy (shadow monks can teleport around in dim light or darkness. I think this is where looking at a class name and thinking why would we need a monk? or what is the monks job? doesn't really fit as you can build pretty much any class to fit most roles, especially RP ones.
Well, *now* you can, lol. Hasn't always been that way, and is one of the reason old farts like me get cranky about there not being any real division between the classes anymore, and we don't like that.
There is a way around that problem that I am using (not the only, not the best, just a way) that still retains that whole flexibility thing that allows you to craft a character that is similar in that way, but it still leaves each class distinct and unique and works super well with 5e.
More pointedly, htough, if that is the case, then why don't they just turn the Monk class into a fighter? Why don' thtey just get rid of it entirely and just make unarmed combat a collection of feats that people can choose if they want?
The point of the classes is to be an archetype -- well, "unarmed combat" isn't an archetype it is something that an archetype does. Same basic principle in play.
What's the archetype? If you don't know that, then you don't have a class, you have a subclass for all the others.
Yes, this edition is quite a bit more flexible. I’m an old fart like you and started out in 1E. I played monks then (PHB monk and the Dragon Magazine monk, which was buffed quite a bit from what I remember) and every other class in that edition. Even took a stab at the bard in the appendix too. So I get what you are saying about class divisions. But I like the flexibility
I think archetype is a better approach than what a class’s “job” is. Fighters fit the armored weapon specialist (even more prominent now with how they interact with weapon mastery). The monk is the living weapon. Quick and mobile, able to strike quickly and repeatedly without the need of weapons or armor. Can they write some better fluff to make them fit better within the world? Of course. But I don’t know if that is necessary as players shouldn’t feel restricted by by that fluff.
Ok ok, we've got momentum ;)
There's almost enough to build an archetype on there -- and I don't so much mean fluff. We can get a lot of fluff but most players find out very early that Druids are the defenders of nature, and their stuff builds on that. Warlocks, Sorcerers, even Wizards (best at magic) and fighters and barbarians all have that little extra color, extra line that gives them their place in the world.
And that matters. I mean, yeah, there are 10,000 Jedi classes out there in the wilds as home brew versions. Jedi are magical warriors of a sort -- like six gazillion other subclasses, lol. But this is also because they have a strong archetype on which they are based. Even the Blood Hunter has it.
Why are they the Living Weapons of the world? One quick answer, not linked to how they do something. Just, what is their place. Is it the drive to prove themselves the best warrior, the most potent foe? To show that weapons are not needed to be victorious? TO demonstrate that the way of peace and self discipline is everything?
Hell, it could be all of them if you wanted to do subclasses.
That is the next question, though -- and from those two parts we can now start to build out a model of what they should be able to do -- unless others disagree with the premise that they are to be living weapons?
Edit: Skip if you don't want to hear me blather on about my stuff.
As an old fart, I do agree on the flexibility -- but it erases that distinction. That's why for the setting I am working on I went ahead and made sure to allow both distinctiveness and flexibility. And it was easy, because basically all I did was take all the special abilities of all the classes and turn them into things I call Aspect, but that the main line would call Feats. All of them. Every last one.
My classes are all distinct and has firm rules in how to create them -- but no subclasses. No, they get to basically choose something from that big ole honkin list of Aspects at different levels, one thing every level with some levels getting two things. And these go with the distinctive abilities that only that class has -- no one else can get them, and they can't be put into the list of aspects.
The playtesters absolutely adore it because they get to stop hearing me whine and they still get their flexibility.
The monk's purpose is to improve themselves and to reach that state where mind body and spirit flow together in their actions, like an artist/performer, or some people get there via sport.
That said every character is different just like some paladins spurn the gods or violate their oaths
If your campaign is D&D Ocean's Eleven, sure. But you can build a monk to fill a role there, just like you could build a fighter, cleric, druid, barbarian, etc... Monks can be stealthy (shadow monks can teleport around in dim light or darkness. I think this is where looking at a class name and thinking why would we need a monk? or what is the monks job? doesn't really fit as you can build pretty much any class to fit most roles, especially RP ones.
Well, *now* you can, lol. Hasn't always been that way, and is one of the reason old farts like me get cranky about there not being any real division between the classes anymore, and we don't like that.
There is a way around that problem that I am using (not the only, not the best, just a way) that still retains that whole flexibility thing that allows you to craft a character that is similar in that way, but it still leaves each class distinct and unique and works super well with 5e.
More pointedly, htough, if that is the case, then why don't they just turn the Monk class into a fighter? Why don' thtey just get rid of it entirely and just make unarmed combat a collection of feats that people can choose if they want?
The point of the classes is to be an archetype -- well, "unarmed combat" isn't an archetype it is something that an archetype does. Same basic principle in play.
What's the archetype? If you don't know that, then you don't have a class, you have a subclass for all the others.
Yes, this edition is quite a bit more flexible. I’m an old fart like you and started out in 1E. I played monks then (PHB monk and the Dragon Magazine monk, which was buffed quite a bit from what I remember) and every other class in that edition. Even took a stab at the bard in the appendix too. So I get what you are saying about class divisions. But I like the flexibility
I think archetype is a better approach than what a class’s “job” is. Fighters fit the armored weapon specialist (even more prominent now with how they interact with weapon mastery). The monk is the living weapon. Quick and mobile, able to strike quickly and repeatedly without the need of weapons or armor. Can they write some better fluff to make them fit better within the world? Of course. But I don’t know if that is necessary as players shouldn’t feel restricted by by that fluff.
Ok ok, we've got momentum ;)
There's almost enough to build an archetype on there -- and I don't so much mean fluff. We can get a lot of fluff but most players find out very early that Druids are the defenders of nature, and their stuff builds on that. Warlocks, Sorcerers, even Wizards (best at magic) and fighters and barbarians all have that little extra color, extra line that gives them their place in the world.
And that matters. I mean, yeah, there are 10,000 Jedi classes out there in the wilds as home brew versions. Jedi are magical warriors of a sort -- like six gazillion other subclasses, lol. But this is also because they have a strong archetype on which they are based. Even the Blood Hunter has it.
Why are they the Living Weapons of the world? One quick answer, not linked to how they do something. Just, what is their place. Is it the drive to prove themselves the best warrior, the most potent foe? To show that weapons are not needed to be victorious? TO demonstrate that the way of peace and self discipline is everything?
Hell, it could be all of them if you wanted to do subclasses.
That is the next question, though -- and from those two parts we can now start to build out a model of what they should be able to do -- unless others disagree with the premise that they are to be living weapons?
Edit: Skip if you don't want to hear me blather on about my stuff.
As an old fart, I do agree on the flexibility -- but it erases that distinction. That's why for the setting I am working on I went ahead and made sure to allow both distinctiveness and flexibility. And it was easy, because basically all I did was take all the special abilities of all the classes and turn them into things I call Aspect, but that the main line would call Feats. All of them. Every last one.
My classes are all distinct and has firm rules in how to create them -- but no subclasses. No, they get to basically choose something from that big ole honkin list of Aspects at different levels, one thing every level with some levels getting two things. And these go with the distinctive abilities that only that class has -- no one else can get them, and they can't be put into the list of aspects.
The playtesters absolutely adore it because they get to stop hearing me whine and they still get their flexibility.
The monk's purpose is to improve themselves and to reach that state where mind body and spirit flow together in their actions, like an artist/performer, or some people get there via sport.
That said every character is different just like some paladins spurn the gods or violate their oaths
Ok, ok, we can add that in there.
Yes, every character is different -- but they all start from the same baseline, which is the class foundation -- their differences are from that central premise, and that's how we get to subclass.
The monk is a living weapon. Monks seek to to improve themselves and to reach that state where mind body and spirit flow together in their actions, becoming quick and mobile, able to prove themselves in battle without the need of weapons or armor.
There we go, that's an archetype.
Do any of the other commenters not like this archetype?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Monk has more tools for escaping danger and controlling enemies.
Tools that all compete for the same resource and the monk's bonus action (Stunning Strike doesn't require the latter, but is doubly so on the former.)
I don't really understand why you and Agilemind are so adamant that there isn't a problem. I get liking monk, it's a cool class with cool ideas. But if everyone is telling you that there is an issue then maybe there's something there? Like, at the very least there would have to be something in the design that's causing a perception issues.
The problem this creates is that 5e doesn't have tanking baked into the game, so the combination of high dpr, low defense, and melee adds up to 'first to die'; in fact, of those five builds, I would say only two (the barbarian and the fighter) are particularly viable, because they have durability enhancements from rage and second wind. People just don't complain as much about the rogue and the ranger because they can be played as archers instead, whereas monks don't have any particularly good ranged options.
Wow really? I'll have to tell my level 17 shortsword using Rogue-Warlock that they are completely non-viable and must have died in session 1, because they had AC 16, and d8 hit die, 14 con, and fought in melee. I mean, it's completely impossible for them have survived the whole level 2-17 campaign only being knocked unconscious 3-4 times since their AC was never higher than an 18 and they only use ranged attacks 3 times in the whole campaign.
warlock/rogue isnt a base rogue, There are numerable ways warlock levels can change things. Also, campaign anecdote doesnt tell us much, Different DMs have different challenge levels or design imperatives, and a good dm adjusts to the group. Also teams can carry people. two great players/classes can beat most CR relative encounters duo, so its possible to have 2-3 players who don't need to be that good.
which is fine as long as everyone has fun.
LOL, half the party was envious of this character because she did pretty amazing DPR combining Green Flame Blade with Sneak Attack and her Scimitar of Speed (occasionally using Eldritch Smite for nova damage). And despite her often standing in melee near to the paladin that had magical full plate so they could get flanking for each other. And yet, despite what all is being said in this thread being a melee-glass cannon worked just fine. Sure she had to be healed more often than any other character, but that's why you have a cleric in the party.
sounds like a very specific table that probably doesnt represent most players play. And certainly not representive of an average rogue.
lvl 5 warlock, flanking rules, very rare items, pocket healers.
fine for your table, but not too relevant to class design.
the game and classes are not designed to assume you have a cleric.
Sorry what? We were not just arguing that monks are crippled because they can't use magic armour so they are impossibly disadvantaged because everyone else will have non-concentration +3 or more to their AC because everyone gets tons of magic items... now suddenly a level 10 character having a Very Rare item is atypical? And yeah, the game is designed assuming you have a diversity of characters in the party, sure you don't need a specific class but a the existence of a healer in the party is pretty much assumed in the design, it could be a cleric, druid, bard, Divine Sorcerer, Celestial Warlock, or even an unusual Wizard that picks up Life Transference. Even in parties with no dedicated healer, there are tons of magic items and potions that substitute just fine. A melee glass cannon is absolutely viable.
warlock/rogue isnt a base rogue, There are numerable ways warlock levels can change things. Also, campaign anecdote doesnt tell us much, Different DMs have different challenge levels or design imperatives, and a good dm adjusts to the group. Also teams can carry people. two great players/classes can beat most CR relative encounters duo, so its possible to have 2-3 players who don't need to be that good.
which is fine as long as everyone has fun.
If a DM has the enemies attack the target that is clearly well armored and isn't doing all that much damage instead of the character that is clearly unarmored and doing high damage they're making the monsters willfully stupid. If you build a high AC fighter and don't give them features that make them sticky (sentinel, cavalier) you're asking to not be attacked and have no justification for objecting when you don't get attacked.
If you've only been knocked unconscious 3-4 times in the entire campaign the DM is not using any hard fights. It barely even matters what your class is.
also, is it a similarly horrible dm who pulls their punches when someone in pajamas rushes into the thick of battle beside the high-AC fighter and begins attempting to soak an equal number of attacks as the fighter? luck might win the day once, but is the risk worth the return in damage on average and repeatably?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I think you said you barely play 5e without homebrew, and only look to one dnd for curiosity, or interesting bits,
so you have some ideas that aren't represented in the actual current or UA game.
1) fighter isn't the highest DPR class in 5e
2) utility and dpr have no real relation, some classes have high dpr and high utility, some classes have low dpr and low utility.
3) sub class has nothing to do with utility or dpr, subclasses are small riffs on a class design. What if I was a wizard who melees, or Druid who was focused on the elements and the land. A ranger with a trusty animal companion. Sub class has to be almost exactly the same as main class with 3-4 features different. Subclasses don't have subclasses.
in your DND amalgamation with various homebrew, you might consider fighter and monk close enough to brew something, But in 5e, fighter subclass is not what the people who play monk want.
LOL, half the party was envious of this character because she did pretty amazing DPR combining Green Flame Blade with Sneak Attack and her Scimitar of Speed (occasionally using Eldritch Smite for nova damage). And despite her often standing in melee near to the paladin that had magical full plate so they could get flanking for each other. And yet, despite what all is being said in this thread being a melee-glass cannon worked just fine. Sure she had to be healed more often than any other character, but that's why you have a cleric in the party.
It appears your DM's standard for appropriate fight difficulty is... different from mine.
40 plus years of the game, I can do with and without homebrew -- my players have varying opinions, though, and they win.
I didn't say they were the highest DPR in the game, I disagree that utility and dpr have no correlation (I mean, like, y'know, science and stuffs), nor did I note that all classes should have the same dpr, sub-classes can impact both utility and dpr, depending on the subclass, the feature, and so forth , I never said subclasses had subclasses, in my set up they are absolutely not akin to each other, and the point of all my points so far is:
nobody agrees on what they want (not the players here, not the designers, not the broader playing public), and the reason for that is that they all have different ideas of what the basic monk archetype is, and what ideas they do have focus on dpr, which is an error to make in my opinion because you cannot judge dpr as a comparative without having an effective archetype, otherwise you are just making a fighter.
I am using a homebrew as a comparator basis, to demonstrate the change in the way that having a strong archetype helps guide the development (and so the guiding the goals of that development) of the class as a whole.
Note that the archetypes I gave in the post you quoted are only *possible* ones -- I am not saying people should use them, I am saying people to need to collectively decide what the archetype they want to see is, and then design and focus the improvements and changes they want to see done officially within that archetype.
Otherwise it is just throwing ultimately meaningless number at each other and complaining without making any attempt to actually solve the problem constructively. I mean, if everyone on this thread were to gather their thoughts and submit them in the next response period for the Monk class, they might listen and adopt some of those changes -- and you might see the Monk get some love from designers who do not appear to really care about it.
EDIT: cleaned up my overly speedy typing.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The Dm should do what the fiction dictates, with a slight bias for people having fun, and trying not to actively end the game.
They probably shouldn't target the guy with high AC just because he wanted people to try to hit him.
its fairly costly to try to force/encourage enemies to attack one guy, DM probably shouldn't do it for free. Its not really a tank based game design. (Which is good imo)
Within the 'combat' pillar of play, in tier 1 all four of them are single target dpr, just with varying offense to defense ratios (and within those classes, there are varying offense to defense ratios). You start getting some soft CC with subclasses at level 3 but they're still primarily dpr. Monks get hard CC at level 5 with stunning strike, so at level 5+ they're hybrid dpr/cc. In theory they could be balancing weaker combat performance with better performance in the other pillars of play, but in practice that doesn't seem to be a major balancing goal and the monk doesn't have any particular special tools in exploration or social anyway.
you are right kreen. thanks for speaking truth .
for some reason people have it in their mind if you make monk good it infringes on the fighter which is the dumbest take. Honestly a monk should do more dpr then a fighter if you are expending a resource. fighter is practically busted that it can attack more and for free it should either be equal or cost a resource as well.
Viable yes, properly balanced to the rest of the classes no . it is far to weak and there is no excuse to not work on fixing it .
You are correct, which is why I have been making the point of just make Monk a subclass of fighter if we are going to focus on the combat aspect of the class.
ANd the reason is because there is no real archetype for them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yes, this edition is quite a bit more flexible. I’m an old fart like you and started out in 1E. I played monks then (PHB monk and the Dragon Magazine monk, which was buffed quite a bit from what I remember) and every other class in that edition. Even took a stab at the bard in the appendix too. So I get what you are saying about class divisions. But I like the flexibility
I think archetype is a better approach than what a class’s “job” is. Fighters fit the armored weapon specialist (even more prominent now with how they interact with weapon mastery). The monk is the living weapon. Quick and mobile, able to strike quickly and repeatedly without the need of weapons or armor. Can they write some better fluff to make them fit better within the world? Of course. But I don’t know if that is necessary as players shouldn’t feel restricted by by that fluff.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
you suggest monk as a subclass of fighter, I'm telling you in the 5e design paradigm, they cannot be a subclass of fighter in a way that would satisfy the 7/8% of players who play monk.
Also, people have differing concepts of what all the classes are, but that doesnt make them bad.
I'm sure people have a lot of different ideas of what the wizard is supposed to be, that doesnt mean they are poorly designed class, or weak.
Ok ok, we've got momentum ;)
There's almost enough to build an archetype on there -- and I don't so much mean fluff. We can get a lot of fluff but most players find out very early that Druids are the defenders of nature, and their stuff builds on that. Warlocks, Sorcerers, even Wizards (best at magic) and fighters and barbarians all have that little extra color, extra line that gives them their place in the world.
And that matters. I mean, yeah, there are 10,000 Jedi classes out there in the wilds as home brew versions. Jedi are magical warriors of a sort -- like six gazillion other subclasses, lol. But this is also because they have a strong archetype on which they are based. Even the Blood Hunter has it.
Why are they the Living Weapons of the world? One quick answer, not linked to how they do something. Just, what is their place. Is it the drive to prove themselves the best warrior, the most potent foe? To show that weapons are not needed to be victorious? TO demonstrate that the way of peace and self discipline is everything?
Hell, it could be all of them if you wanted to do subclasses.
That is the next question, though -- and from those two parts we can now start to build out a model of what they should be able to do -- unless others disagree with the premise that they are to be living weapons?
Edit: Skip if you don't want to hear me blather on about my stuff.
As an old fart, I do agree on the flexibility -- but it erases that distinction. That's why for the setting I am working on I went ahead and made sure to allow both distinctiveness and flexibility. And it was easy, because basically all I did was take all the special abilities of all the classes and turn them into things I call Aspect, but that the main line would call Feats. All of them. Every last one.
My classes are all distinct and has firm rules in how to create them -- but no subclasses. No, they get to basically choose something from that big ole honkin list of Aspects at different levels, one thing every level with some levels getting two things. And these go with the distinctive abilities that only that class has -- no one else can get them, and they can't be put into the list of aspects.
The playtesters absolutely adore it because they get to stop hearing me whine and they still get their flexibility.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
sounds like a very specific table that probably doesnt represent most players play. And certainly not representive of an average rogue.
lvl 5 warlock, flanking rules, very rare items, pocket healers.
fine for your table, but not too relevant to class design.
the game and classes are not designed to assume you have a cleric.
The monk's purpose is to improve themselves and to reach that state where mind body and spirit flow together in their actions, like an artist/performer, or some people get there via sport.
That said every character is different just like some paladins spurn the gods or violate their oaths
Ok, ok, we can add that in there.
Yes, every character is different -- but they all start from the same baseline, which is the class foundation -- their differences are from that central premise, and that's how we get to subclass.
There we go, that's an archetype.
Do any of the other commenters not like this archetype?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Tools that all compete for the same resource and the monk's bonus action (Stunning Strike doesn't require the latter, but is doubly so on the former.)
I don't really understand why you and Agilemind are so adamant that there isn't a problem. I get liking monk, it's a cool class with cool ideas. But if everyone is telling you that there is an issue then maybe there's something there? Like, at the very least there would have to be something in the design that's causing a perception issues.
Sorry what? We were not just arguing that monks are crippled because they can't use magic armour so they are impossibly disadvantaged because everyone else will have non-concentration +3 or more to their AC because everyone gets tons of magic items... now suddenly a level 10 character having a Very Rare item is atypical? And yeah, the game is designed assuming you have a diversity of characters in the party, sure you don't need a specific class but a the existence of a healer in the party is pretty much assumed in the design, it could be a cleric, druid, bard, Divine Sorcerer, Celestial Warlock, or even an unusual Wizard that picks up Life Transference. Even in parties with no dedicated healer, there are tons of magic items and potions that substitute just fine. A melee glass cannon is absolutely viable.