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?
It's way too generic. Every character in D&D seeks to improve themselves, almost all the martial classes are quick and mobile (Rangers have Zephyr Strike, Paladins have mounts, Rogues have cunning action, Barbarians have fast movement). There isn't enough distinct from a Barbarian. Rename "Rage" as "Battle Trance" and you've essentially got your "monk" archetype right there.
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?
I would delete the fluff: "The monk is a living weapon, able to prove themselves in battle without the need of weapons or armor."
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?
I would delete the fluff: "The monk is a living weapon, able to prove themselves in battle without the need of weapons or armor."
The fluff is what makes them Not a fighter class, though.
without it, just make them a subclass of fighter
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
"The monk is a living weapon, able to prove themselves in battle without the need of weapons or armor."
If that is the archetype then almost all the subclasses need to be scraped. Shadow, Elements, Mercy and Kensei do not fit this archetype. Only Open Hand (body-focused) and Astral (spirit-focused) fit the archetype. Likewise, Monk gets no weapon proficiencies, and has all their class features not only not work if you're wearing armour, but also if you are holding weapons. They also don't get to run up walls or across water, nor slow fall, nor Diamond Soul, nor Perfect Body, nor whatever they renamed that invisibility feature. Instead you get Battlemaster subclass features as your class features plus Martial Arts and Unarmoured Defence = 10+DEX+CON.
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?
It's way too generic. Every character in D&D seeks to improve themselves, almost all the martial classes are quick and mobile (Rangers have Zephyr Strike, Paladins have mounts, Rogues have cunning action, Barbarians have fast movement). There isn't enough distinct from a Barbarian. Rename "Rage" as "Battle Trance" and you've essentially got your "monk" archetype right there.
ah, yes, because the pinnacle of enhancing mind and body to operate in unison at all times is “battle trance”, an ability that to be turned on and off?
no, this is enough to separate them Barbadian’s — but don’t let my snark get to you: you have a point, and I don’t dispute the self improvement piece is common — but note that the purpose of that self improvement is unification of a Monk’s Mind and Body and Spirit into a unified whole, making them a Living weapon.
it is absolutely close to a Barbarian or a fighter — but that bit of fluff is enough to separate them.
all of which I say with the caveat of: so what would you say, instead?
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
The monk is a mystical warrior who harnesses the magic inherent within all living things to empower themselves and manipulate their enemies.
Which is simply an abridged version of how they are described in the current PHB:
Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies’ physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
The fluff is what makes them Not a fighter class, though.
without it, just make them a subclass of fighter
The fluff I deleted is gibberish with no meaning. It's probably worth mentioning that there's a mystical element, but it should be stated in a way that allows a person reading it to actually get a sense of what it means.
The monk is a mystical warrior, a living weapon. Monks seek to harnesses the magic inherent within all living things to empower themselves and to reach that state where mind, body, and spirit flow together, enabling them in their actions, becoming quick and mobile, giving them gifts to manipulate their enemies and prove themselves without the need of weapons or armor in battle.
Now we have a more complex and genuinely distinct archetype that we can operate in. THis one can support the existing subclasses, and provides enough distance from Fighter and Barbarian to really make it stand alone.Yes, it is fluff, but it is fluff that avoids saying "this is part of that particular world", and works in *almost* any setting. That fluff is important. A pillow without fluff is just a sack, after all.
I think back to the Kensei class of OA as a possible subclass to this. I will note, supports the argument hat more combat dpr is needed for them, because they are not able to keep up with the other warrior classes (notably Fighter and Barbarian).
Does anyone strongly object to this archetype? Does it meet your needs (without subclasses, for the moment) for a baseline monk who is not a Fighter and not a Barbarian?
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
Why does ki-magic need a detail explanation but regular magic or psionic magic doesn't? There are dozens of types of magic in D&D, monks just have their own type of magic that only their arts are able to tap into.
Why does ki-magic need a detail explanation but regular magic or psionic magic doesn't? There are dozens of types of magic in D&D, monks just have their own type of magic that only their arts are able to tap into.
This person is trying to create an archetype, its not important that its a different magic, its important that the magic is an aspect of achieving mind/body/spirit unification,
Which better defines what this archetype is pursuing.
the monk as described would not seek wizard style magic, because it wouldn't be achieved in a way that 'enlightens' them. Their superhuman abilities are a product of their mental, physical, and spiritual pursuits, The goal is not power by any means, Or to defeat all enemies the goal is 'enlightenment' , 'True flow state' , 'ephiphany', 'inspiration'
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.
And I'm not saying magic items don't matter, I'm saying that your experience is a unique one and doesnt represent a base case that we can say, this mechanic or concept is tine.
there is no expectation of having a healer in the party. There is no part in the phb where it says, make sure your party has a healer, or when they talk about picking a class do they say your party needs x y z combat roles. The primary design of the game is that players create a fantasy, and group up together as that fantasy. Some people are interested in picking a character based on combat roles, and the game does support people who like that, but its not a base assumption.
You can have a party of all rogues, or bards. 3 players or 6,
and in certain situations a melee glass cannon fan work, but it doesnt work for the base monk class. Doesnt work for base rogue either, their damage is average.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
I think part of that, the “We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.” part, is some of us are realizing how safe WotC is trying to play it, making small changes and we are putting forth suggestions to buff based on that. While others still want more drastic changes to buff the monk with much wider rework of the class.
I started a thread here when One D&D was announced where many of us who wanted a better monk posted a wide assortment of ideas that would make a monk very different from what we have now. I’ve since abandoned many of my own ideas from then since seeing how little this update is changing in the name of backwards compatibility. Others still seem to want some of those big changes.
And when has any large group on Internet forums ever agreed on everything all at once? Isn’t that kind of the point for forums like this one?
Edit: my hope is that we will see something like what happened to the Rogue. When it first came out, the rogue had minimal changes (mostly negative). Now in the new release they have cunning strikes.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
people don't need to agree in order to have something resolved or improved. We are discussing and debating our own possible ideas and their merits, someone reading it can read and decide where they agree, or disagree. The designer doesn't have to do what any of us say, but a good designer tries to understand what people are saying, and consider it.
Ultimately it will come down to a couple of guys decision at Wotc, Then players will decide if they are OK with that, and play monk or not, or alter it to suit their needs.
and quivering palm is bad.
its average damage is lower than other classes damage with basic combos, and it takes two turns to set up and 3ki.
for reference 3ki should equal 3 extra hits, in terms of damage, In terms of spike, 3MA dice.
its bad to have a high level powerful skill that = less than regular damage. Its only even on the table because monk's t3 damage is so low, that it seems OK.
but let's not take my word for it, here is the math:
10d12+monk level damage = max
1/2(10d12+monk level) =.min.
max average damage is 85 at lvl 20
min average damage is 42.5 at lvl 20.
this ONLY does damage, no other effect, so its value is simple.
this is a con save, one of the worst endgame saves. its basically on average +9 at 17 and + 12 for 20 plus. This is the physical oriented subclass so Ki save is 18.
this means its 40% success rate at 17, and 30% at 20+
mathematically thats . 57.4 damage at 17 and 55.7 damage at 20. this costs 3 ki, and you have no action.
other classes at 20, 22 dmg stat,
a basic champion fighter, just using GS polearm, GWM, and PAM GWF. is 65.37 average damage at 20.
lets say they go topple and have advantage, 73.73
without even using action surge, they destroy this damage, and thats not even an optimized build. Thats the basic heavy weapon rotation, it gets even higher because if they crit/kill early, they won't even use polearm or its HAFT
Berserker Barbarian, DW PAM GWM. nick scimitar> flex longsword> Polearm >Haft. 77.27 per round. edit, I forgot primal champ, but this is already enough.
wizard i won't even pretend to know their best build, but blade of disaster + a lvl 6 scorching ray is 98.8 damage, if they set up advantage for blade, thats 121 damage, if they set up both with advantage, thats 133. the setup turn, where they can't cast two spells is 76 dpr with firebolt. For reference blade of disaster is a BA and averages 54.6 dpr at 20. (practically more than quivering palm, for 10 turns)
STR RANGER hunter, 20/22 str/wis
same barbarian combo, +5damage+5attack,(capstone) 3d6 HM, colossus slayer. 78.95
And this doesnt even include the fact you probably have magic items by 17-20.
short version quivering palm is a joke. Monk t3-4 Is a joke, and quivering palm is a punchline.
locking off monk from martial features, masteries, and no serious dpr boosts after 5 makes them trash, and open hand is now probably the worst subclass, with its level 3 feature inferior to mastery, its level 17 feature promised mediocrity, its level 11 feature not very useful, since a monk who doesnt FOB is bad, (especially openhand) and its level 6 heal has two resource requirements for some odd reason.
damn, redoing this math gets me annoyed again, how did they decide nerfing monk, an underperforming class was a good idea. I'm not sure any endgame class has less damage potential.
for reference if I had to remake quivering, assuming all else the same, and no instakill, I would make it have the same starting condition, and save
however, it would record the damage on the turn its applied, and deal double damage+stun (essentially vulnerability) on failed save or half that on succeeded save (normal damage) but enable a BA UA attack. (which means you can apply it again)
this means the minimum damage is 1 attack better than your average, and the max is double. This means you can burn Ki to do 1.55* dmg every other turn. on average it would increase your dps by 27-30% by burning Ki, and would scale with your ability to do damage.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
5eR Quivering Palm is garbage. If the enemy make the Constitution save throw then it does about the same damage as a full round of attacks + FoB only it's a damage type that is more easily resisted and it costs 3 DP rather than 1, whereas if the enemy fails the constitution saving throw you would have been better off trying to stun it b/c stunning it is more powerful than doubling a round worth of monk damage. If buffing that terrible feature (by removing the con save) would make Monk broken by your standards then this it is why we can't have a properly balanced monk.
By your reasoning also the paladin and ranger, should be of the subclasses of the fighter? But what kind of thinking is this? Honestly, I am totally against it.
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
Monk is bad unless they can do LITERALLY INFINITE DAMAGE off of one single save, apparently.
monk is bad if their t4 every other turn ability does less damage than other peoples normal damage rotations. They also nerfed its fail state damage.
They can eliminate insta kill if they have to, but it still needs to be worthwhile.
so, who is paying you to try to make sure monk remains bottom teir? And virtually useless?
You can have a party of all rogues, or bards. 3 players or 6,
and in certain situations a melee glass cannon fan work, but it doesnt work for the base monk class. Doesnt work for base rogue either, their damage is average.
I agree monk and rogue aren't glass cannons but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be glass cannons (and TBH if you optimize your party so the rogue routinely get reaction-sneak attacks they absolutely are glass cannons). Sure you can play as a party of 3 rogues (or a solo player) with 0 magic but that doesn't mean the game is built with that in mind, try playing any prewritten adventure with that party and 0 modifications and I guarantee you they will TPK. DMs can certainly adapt content to any party - e.g. by giving them a Staff of Healing, toning down encounters, fudging dice etc... - but again that doesn't mean the game is built with that in mind. Merely that DMs can patch it to work with any party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's way too generic. Every character in D&D seeks to improve themselves, almost all the martial classes are quick and mobile (Rangers have Zephyr Strike, Paladins have mounts, Rogues have cunning action, Barbarians have fast movement). There isn't enough distinct from a Barbarian. Rename "Rage" as "Battle Trance" and you've essentially got your "monk" archetype right there.
I would delete the fluff: "The monk is a living weapon, able to prove themselves in battle without the need of weapons or armor."
The fluff is what makes them Not a fighter class, though.
without it, just make them a subclass of fighter
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 that is the archetype then almost all the subclasses need to be scraped. Shadow, Elements, Mercy and Kensei do not fit this archetype. Only Open Hand (body-focused) and Astral (spirit-focused) fit the archetype. Likewise, Monk gets no weapon proficiencies, and has all their class features not only not work if you're wearing armour, but also if you are holding weapons. They also don't get to run up walls or across water, nor slow fall, nor Diamond Soul, nor Perfect Body, nor whatever they renamed that invisibility feature. Instead you get Battlemaster subclass features as your class features plus Martial Arts and Unarmoured Defence = 10+DEX+CON.
ah, yes, because the pinnacle of enhancing mind and body to operate in unison at all times is “battle trance”, an ability that to be turned on and off?
no, this is enough to separate them Barbadian’s — but don’t let my snark get to you: you have a point, and I don’t dispute the self improvement piece is common — but note that the purpose of that self improvement is unification of a Monk’s Mind and Body and Spirit into a unified whole, making them a Living weapon.
it is absolutely close to a Barbarian or a fighter — but that bit of fluff is enough to separate them.
all of which I say with the caveat of: so what would you say, instead?
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
I would describe the monk archetype as :
The monk is a mystical warrior who harnesses the magic inherent within all living things to empower themselves and manipulate their enemies.
Which is simply an abridged version of how they are described in the current PHB:
The fluff I deleted is gibberish with no meaning. It's probably worth mentioning that there's a mystical element, but it should be stated in a way that allows a person reading it to actually get a sense of what it means.
Now we have a more complex and genuinely distinct archetype that we can operate in. THis one can support the existing subclasses, and provides enough distance from Fighter and Barbarian to really make it stand alone.Yes, it is fluff, but it is fluff that avoids saying "this is part of that particular world", and works in *almost* any setting. That fluff is important. A pillow without fluff is just a sack, after all.
I think back to the Kensei class of OA as a possible subclass to this. I will note, supports the argument hat more combat dpr is needed for them, because they are not able to keep up with the other warrior classes (notably Fighter and Barbarian).
Does anyone strongly object to this archetype? Does it meet your needs (without subclasses, for the moment) for a baseline monk who is not a Fighter and not a Barbarian?
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
Why does ki-magic need a detail explanation but regular magic or psionic magic doesn't? There are dozens of types of magic in D&D, monks just have their own type of magic that only their arts are able to tap into.
This person is trying to create an archetype, its not important that its a different magic, its important that the magic is an aspect of achieving mind/body/spirit unification,
Which better defines what this archetype is pursuing.
the monk as described would not seek wizard style magic, because it wouldn't be achieved in a way that 'enlightens' them. Their superhuman abilities are a product of their mental, physical, and spiritual pursuits, The goal is not power by any means, Or to defeat all enemies the goal is 'enlightenment' , 'True flow state' , 'ephiphany', 'inspiration'
And I'm not saying magic items don't matter, I'm saying that your experience is a unique one and doesnt represent a base case that we can say, this mechanic or concept is tine.
there is no expectation of having a healer in the party. There is no part in the phb where it says, make sure your party has a healer, or when they talk about picking a class do they say your party needs x y z combat roles. The primary design of the game is that players create a fantasy, and group up together as that fantasy. Some people are interested in picking a character based on combat roles, and the game does support people who like that, but its not a base assumption.
You can have a party of all rogues, or bards. 3 players or 6,
and in certain situations a melee glass cannon fan work, but it doesnt work for the base monk class. Doesnt work for base rogue either, their damage is average.
After 70+ pages of arguments, debates and ideas being shared by a relatively small number of people if we can’t come to a consensus about how to fix the Monk I’m betting WotC won’t come to one either. We can’t agree on what a Monk should be and what play style they are suppose to represent, so how can WotC fix the Monk In a meaningful way to satisfy the vast majority. If these same arguments, debates and ideas were presented to a larger portion of the community we would just inspire more arguments, debates, and ideas instead of finding a happy middle ground.
It doesn't need a middle ground it needs an unapologetic buff.
I have said this before but if monk is fixed the other players who want monk to be weaker can still play that way.
I have no idea why they are so hipster about not wanting to fix the class they actually get offended at any attempt to make the class better,
its nuts and every time they fail to back up their arguments with math or awareness . most minmaxers will tell you monk is weaker becuase they know how to strengthen many classes to their limits,
they usually do know better then a casual dm or player who doesn't know and isn't educated on the limitations of the class.
so ya it is completely up to wotc if they want to properly make monks stronger . but even if they don't. I wont cede ground to people who don't understand the mechanics of the game and insist that in this roleplaying game only their flavor of monk should be represented .
Considering you believe the new 5eR Quivering Palm is “Garbo” I don’t want the monk unapologetically buffed by your standard. It would probably become broken by my standard. And this conversation proves the point I was trying to make. We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.
I think part of that, the “We are 70+ pages in and two people who agree the monk needs to be buffed don’t agree on what and how they need to be buffed.” part, is some of us are realizing how safe WotC is trying to play it, making small changes and we are putting forth suggestions to buff based on that. While others still want more drastic changes to buff the monk with much wider rework of the class.
I started a thread here when One D&D was announced where many of us who wanted a better monk posted a wide assortment of ideas that would make a monk very different from what we have now. I’ve since abandoned many of my own ideas from then since seeing how little this update is changing in the name of backwards compatibility. Others still seem to want some of those big changes.
And when has any large group on Internet forums ever agreed on everything all at once? Isn’t that kind of the point for forums like this one?
Edit: my hope is that we will see something like what happened to the Rogue. When it first came out, the rogue had minimal changes (mostly negative). Now in the new release they have cunning strikes.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
people don't need to agree in order to have something resolved or improved. We are discussing and debating our own possible ideas and their merits, someone reading it can read and decide where they agree, or disagree. The designer doesn't have to do what any of us say, but a good designer tries to understand what people are saying, and consider it.
Ultimately it will come down to a couple of guys decision at Wotc, Then players will decide if they are OK with that, and play monk or not, or alter it to suit their needs.
and quivering palm is bad.
its average damage is lower than other classes damage with basic combos, and it takes two turns to set up and 3ki.
for reference 3ki should equal 3 extra hits, in terms of damage, In terms of spike, 3MA dice.
its bad to have a high level powerful skill that = less than regular damage. Its only even on the table because monk's t3 damage is so low, that it seems OK.
but let's not take my word for it, here is the math:
10d12+monk level damage = max
1/2(10d12+monk level) =.min.
max average damage is 85 at lvl 20
min average damage is 42.5 at lvl 20.
this ONLY does damage, no other effect, so its value is simple.
this is a con save, one of the worst endgame saves. its basically on average +9 at 17 and + 12 for 20 plus. This is the physical oriented subclass so Ki save is 18.
this means its 40% success rate at 17, and 30% at 20+
mathematically thats . 57.4 damage at 17 and 55.7 damage at 20. this costs 3 ki, and you have no action.
other classes at 20, 22 dmg stat,
a basic champion fighter, just using GS polearm, GWM, and PAM GWF. is 65.37 average damage at 20.
lets say they go topple and have advantage, 73.73
without even using action surge, they destroy this damage, and thats not even an optimized build. Thats the basic heavy weapon rotation, it gets even higher because if they crit/kill early, they won't even use polearm or its HAFT
Berserker Barbarian, DW PAM GWM. nick scimitar> flex longsword> Polearm >Haft. 77.27 per round. edit, I forgot primal champ, but this is already enough.
wizard i won't even pretend to know their best build, but blade of disaster + a lvl 6 scorching ray is 98.8 damage, if they set up advantage for blade, thats 121 damage, if they set up both with advantage, thats 133. the setup turn, where they can't cast two spells is 76 dpr with firebolt. For reference blade of disaster is a BA and averages 54.6 dpr at 20. (practically more than quivering palm, for 10 turns)
STR RANGER hunter, 20/22 str/wis
same barbarian combo, +5damage+5attack,(capstone) 3d6 HM, colossus slayer. 78.95
And this doesnt even include the fact you probably have magic items by 17-20.
short version quivering palm is a joke. Monk t3-4 Is a joke, and quivering palm is a punchline.
locking off monk from martial features, masteries, and no serious dpr boosts after 5 makes them trash, and open hand is now probably the worst subclass, with its level 3 feature inferior to mastery, its level 17 feature promised mediocrity, its level 11 feature not very useful, since a monk who doesnt FOB is bad, (especially openhand) and its level 6 heal has two resource requirements for some odd reason.
damn, redoing this math gets me annoyed again, how did they decide nerfing monk, an underperforming class was a good idea. I'm not sure any endgame class has less damage potential.
for reference if I had to remake quivering, assuming all else the same, and no instakill, I would make it have the same starting condition, and save
however, it would record the damage on the turn its applied, and deal double damage+stun (essentially vulnerability) on failed save or half that on succeeded save (normal damage) but enable a BA UA attack. (which means you can apply it again)
this means the minimum damage is 1 attack better than your average, and the max is double. This means you can burn Ki to do 1.55* dmg every other turn. on average it would increase your dps by 27-30% by burning Ki, and would scale with your ability to do damage.
5eR Quivering Palm is garbage. If the enemy make the Constitution save throw then it does about the same damage as a full round of attacks + FoB only it's a damage type that is more easily resisted and it costs 3 DP rather than 1, whereas if the enemy fails the constitution saving throw you would have been better off trying to stun it b/c stunning it is more powerful than doubling a round worth of monk damage. If buffing that terrible feature (by removing the con save) would make Monk broken by your standards then this it is why we can't have a properly balanced monk.
By your reasoning also the paladin and ranger, should be of the subclasses of the fighter? But what kind of thinking is this? Honestly, I am totally against it.
monk is bad if their t4 every other turn ability does less damage than other peoples normal damage rotations. They also nerfed its fail state damage.
They can eliminate insta kill if they have to, but it still needs to be worthwhile.
so, who is paying you to try to make sure monk remains bottom teir? And virtually useless?
I agree monk and rogue aren't glass cannons but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be glass cannons (and TBH if you optimize your party so the rogue routinely get reaction-sneak attacks they absolutely are glass cannons). Sure you can play as a party of 3 rogues (or a solo player) with 0 magic but that doesn't mean the game is built with that in mind, try playing any prewritten adventure with that party and 0 modifications and I guarantee you they will TPK. DMs can certainly adapt content to any party - e.g. by giving them a Staff of Healing, toning down encounters, fudging dice etc... - but again that doesn't mean the game is built with that in mind. Merely that DMs can patch it to work with any party.